Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wrong-site surgery remains a common problem as voluntary preoperative skin-marking protocols have met only limited success. The purpose of the present study was to investigate orthopaedic surgeons with regard to their site-signing practices and "time out" procedural compliance for emergent and nonemergent surgical cases in a single health-care region before and after the institution of the "time out" protocol of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. METHODS: In the first study, performed in 2006, the presence of the initials of either the surgeon or the surgical resident in the draped surgical field was documented at the time of forty-eight procedures over a three-month period. In a second study, performed a year later, 231 randomly selected procedures were similarly evaluated, as was the performance of the newly adopted "time out" process. RESULTS: In the first study, after surgical field draping, the surgeon's initials were visible in 67% of emergent cases and 90% of elective cases. In the second study, the surgeon's initials were visible in 61% of emergent cases and 83% of elective cases. The "time out" was performed prior to the skin incision in 70% of the cases, was performed after the incision in 19%, and was not performed at all in 11%. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgeons should recognize the value of preoperative skin signing for all procedures and the additional value of the "time out" protocol. We recommend that surgeons strive for 100% compliance with both strategies.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".