Enhanced recovery pathway for radical prostatectomy: Implementation and evaluation in a universal healthcare system
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery pathways are standardized, multidisciplinary, consensus-based tools that provide guidelines for evidence-based decision-making. This study evaluates the impact of the implementation of a clinical care pathway on patient outcomes following radical prostatectomy in a universal healthcare system. METHODS: Medical charts of 200 patients with prostate cancer who underwent open and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy at a single academic hospital from 2009 to 2012 were reviewed. A group of 100 consecutive patients' pre-pathway implementation was compared with 99 consecutive patients' post-pathway implementation. Duration of hospital stay, complications, post-discharge emergency department visits and readmissions were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Length of hospital stay decreased from a median of 3 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 4 to 3 days) days in the pre-pathway group to a median of 2 (IQR 3 to 2 days) days in the post-pathway group regardless of surgical approach (p < 0.0001). Complication rates, emergency department visits and hospital readmissions were not significantly different in the pre- and post-pathway groups (17% vs. 21%, p = 0.80; 12% vs. 12%, p = 0.95; and 3% vs. 7%, p = 0.18, respectively). These findings were consistent after stratification by surgical approach. Limitations of our study include lack of assessment of patient satisfaction, and the retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a standardized, multidisciplinary clinical care pathway for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy improved efficiency without increasing complication rates or hospital readmissions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it