Physical Therapy Management for Adult Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Canadian Practice Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine current Canadian physical therapy practice for adult patients requiring routine care following cardiac surgery. METHODS: A telephone survey was conducted of a selected sample (n=18) of Canadian hospitals performing cardiac surgery to determine cardiorespiratory care, mobility, exercises, and education provided to patients undergoing cardiac surgery. RESULTS: An average of 21 cardiac surgeries per week (range: 6-42) were performed, with an average length of stay of 6.4 days (range: 4.0-10.6). Patients were seen preoperatively at 7 of 18 sites and on postoperative day 1 (POD-1) at 16 of 18 sites. On POD-1, 16 sites performed deep breathing and coughing, 7 used incentive spirometers, 13 did upper-extremity exercises, and 12 did lower-extremity exercises. Nine sites provided cardiorespiratory treatment on POD-3. On POD-1, patients were dangled at 17 sites and mobilized out of bed at 13. By POD-3, patients ambulated 50-120 m per session 2-5 times per day. Sternal precautions were variable, but the lifting limit was reported as ranging between 5 lb and 10 lb. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian physical therapists reported the provision of cardiorespiratory treatment after POD-1. According to current available evidence, this level of care may be unnecessary for uncomplicated patients following cardiac surgery. In addition, some sites provide cardiorespiratory treatment techniques that are not supported by evidence in the literature. Further research is required.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".