MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018589971 · doi:10.1097/aco.0b013e328331d498

Escort accompanying discharge after ambulatory surgery: a necessity or a luxury?

2009· review· en· W2018589971 on OpenAlexaff
Hui Yun Vivian Ip, Frances Chung

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Anaesthesiology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatoryIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a growing demand for greater efficiency in ambulatory surgery. The patient population is increasingly sick which is also undergoing more advanced and complex surgery. This creates a danger in discharging patients without meeting the criterion of requirement of a responsible adult as an escort to accompany the patient home. The purpose of this review is to examine the most recent findings to determine whether an escort for patient discharge is necessary. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have outlined the risks of discharging patients without escort after ambulatory anesthesia. There are three aspects that deter discharge of patients without an escort: medication used in general anesthetics or sedation; regional anesthesia; and surgical factors. All these can affect the cognitive, memory and psychomotor function of the patients, deeming them unable to perform normal daily activities such as driving. SUMMARY: Both clinicians and patients may have underestimated the risks associated with discharging patients without an escort after ambulatory anesthesia. There should be greater awareness of this problem. Patient discharge without an escort after ambulatory surgery under general anesthesia, sedation or premedication can potentially be dangerous and is not recommended.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in AnaesthesiologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207