Canadian Survey of Perianesthetic Care for Patients Receiving Electroconvulsive Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We report on the anesthesia subsection of a comprehensive nationwide survey (Canadian Electroconvulsive Therapy Survey/Enquête canadienne sur les electrochocs) on the practice of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in Canada. METHODS: This comprehensive survey was sent to the 175 Canadian institutions identified as providers of ECT in 2007. Among other topics, 9 anesthesia-related questions were administered regarding anesthesiology consultation; high-risk patients; credentials of the anesthesia provider; monitoring, airway, and resuscitation equipment; anesthetic induction, muscle relaxant, vasoactive, and other perianesthetic drugs and practices; and postanesthetic discharge. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent (107/175) of the institutions returned completed survey questionnaires. More than 70% of the sites reported pre-ECT anesthesiology consultation for all (61%) or most (11%) patients. In more than 90%, a Canadian Royal College-certified anesthesiologist, or equivalent, provided anesthetic care. Routine use of oximetry, electrocardiography, and blood pressure monitoring were reported by all but 2 sites; use of bite block was reported by all but 4 sites; and preoxygenation was reported by all but 7 sites. Dantrolene and capnography were not reported as readily available by 35% and 40%, respectively, with comparatively less frequent availability at non-operating room and lower-volume sites. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest safe practices of anesthesia for ECT in Canada. Further attention needs to be paid to ready availability of dantrolene and capnography, particularly at non-operating room ECT sites. Improvements in anesthetic care of patients undergoing ECT may be realized through continued knowledge translation efforts and by expanding access to currently unavailable anesthetic induction agents and, in some settings, limited clinical anesthesiology resources.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".