A quantification of discharge readiness after outpatient anaesthesia: patients' vs nurses' assesment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Criteria for discharge after outpatient surgery do not take into consideration the patients' assessment of discharge readiness. Our aim was to compare discharge readiness as determined by nurses with that determined by patients against the modified Aldrete score as a benchmark. Design and setting: In this prospective study, a single observer followed 194 outpatients in the PACU. A modified Aldrete score was assigned and further assessments were made at 15-min intervals in parallel with those made by nursing staff. Nurses and patients were blinded to each other's assessments. Discharge readiness was quantified according to three different approaches: 1) time to reach a modified Aldrete score of >9,2) time to discharge readiness according to the patient's own evaluation and, 3) time to discharge readiness according to nursing assessments. Results: All three times were significantly different from each other. a) Time to achieve a modified Aldrete score >9 was 8.3+7.6 min, b) Time the patient felt discharge ready was 45.3+39.5 min, c) Time the patient was actually discharged by nurses was 86.8+45.8 min. Conclusions: Nursing staff tend to keep patients an additional 41.5 + 36.6 min in the PACU compared to the patients' own evaluation. Significant cost saving could be potentially realised if outpatients who achieve a modified Aldrete score >9 are allowed some freedom in the determination of their own discharge readiness.
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 | 0.001 | 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".