Sustainability: orthopaedic surgery wait time management strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to examine Canadian organizational and systemic factors that made it possible to keep wait times within federally established limits for at least 18 months. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The research design is a multiple cases study. The paper selected three cases: Case 1 - staff were able to maintain compliance with requirements for more than 18 months; Case 2 - staff were able to meet requirements for 18 months, but unable to sustain this level; Case 3 - staff were never able to meet the requirements. For each case the authors interviewed persons involved in the strategies and collected documents. The paper analysed systemic and organizational-level factors; including governance and leadership, culture, resources, methods and tools. FINDINGS: Findings indicate that the hospital that was able to maintain compliance with the wait time requirements had specific characteristics: an exclusive mandate to do only hip and knee replacement surgery; motivated staff who were not distracted by other concerns; and a strong team spirit. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors' research highlights an important gradient between three cases regarding the factors that sustain waiting times. The paper show that the hospital factory model seems attractive in a super-specialized surgery context. However, patients are selected for simple surgeries, without complications, and so this cannot be considered a unique model.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".