Outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: home visit versus telephone follow-up.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the post-discharge follow-up required for patients who have undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy on an outpatient basis and to determine if there was a significant difference in mean concern scores and satisfaction level of patients followed up by a home visit versus a telephone call. DESIGN: Prospective 2-group comparison. SETTING: A 221-bed acute care community hospital in western Canada. PATIENTS: One hundred and forty-nine patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy and agreed to be discharged on the day of operation. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were systematically allocated to receive either a home visit (HV, n = 72) or a telephone call (TC, n = 77) from a registered nurse on the evening of operation. During the follow-up, patient concerns were self-rated, interventions provided by the nurse were recorded, and nurses' perceptions of the need for the home visit were reported. A 48-hour telephone survey was used to determine patient satisfaction. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient concern scores, patient satisfaction with follow-up, readmission rates and use of emergency room services within 30 days of operation. RESULTS: Subjects in the TC group had a significantly lower mean concern score (p < 0.001) and were significantly more satisfied with their follow-up (p = 0.034) than those in the HV group. Nurses perceived that 75% of the home visits were not necessary. Readmission rate was less than 1% (1 HV) and use of emergency room services was 6% (3 HV, 6 TC). CONCLUSIONS: Telephone contact is an acceptable method of follow-up for patients who have undergone outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The call should be made later in the evening on the day of operation or the next morning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".