MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016904622 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-12-311

Evaluation of supply-side initiatives to improve access to coronary bypass surgery

2012· article· en· W2016904622 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Boris Sobolev, Guy Fradet, Lisa Kuramoto, R. Sobolyeva, Basia Rogula, Adrian R. Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversitySpinal Cord Injury BCVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteCanada Research ChairsSt. Paul's Foundation
KeywordsMedicineCardiac surgeryEmergency medicinePercentileBypass surgeryRevascularizationPopulationSurgeryGeneral surgeryMedical emergencyInternal medicineArteryMyocardial infarctionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guided by the evidence that delaying coronary revascularization may lead to symptom worsening and poorer clinical outcomes, expansion in cardiac surgery capacity has been recommended in Canada. Provincial governments started providing one-time and recurring increases in budgets for additional open heart surgeries to reduce waiting times. We sought to determine whether the year of decision to proceed with non-emergency coronary bypass surgery had an effect on time to surgery. METHODS: Using records from a population-based registry, we studied times between decision to operate and the procedure itself. We estimated changes in the length of time that patients had to wait for non-emergency operation over 14 calendar periods that included several years when supplementary funding was available. We studied waiting times separately for patients who access surgery through a wait list and through direct admission. RESULTS: During two periods when supplementary funding was available, 1998-1999 and 2004-2005, the weekly rate of undergoing surgery from a wait list was, respectively, 50% and 90% higher than in 1996-1997, the period with the longest waiting times. We also observed a reduction in the difference between 90th and 50th percentiles of the waiting-time distributions. Forty percent of patients in the 1998, 1999, 2004 and 2005 cohorts (years when supplementary funding was provided) underwent surgery within 16 to 20 weeks following the median waiting time, while it took between 27 and 37 weeks for the cohorts registered in the years when supplementary funding was not available. Times between decision and surgery were shorter for direct admissions than for wait-listed patients. Among patients who were directly admitted to hospital, time between decision and surgery was longest in 1992-1993 and then has been steadily decreasing through the late nineties. The rate of surgery among these patients was the highest in 1998-1999, and has not changed afterwards, even for years when supplementary funding was provided. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting times for non-emergency coronary bypass surgery shortened after supplementary funding was granted to increase volume of cardiac surgical care in a health system with publicly-funded universal coverage for the procedure. The effect of the supplementary funding was not uniform for patients that access the services through wait lists and through direct admission.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.372
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationFrench-language works237,207