Outcomes after the regionalization of major surgical procedures in the Alberta Capital Health Region (Edmonton).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of regionalization on the outcomes of 16 surgical procedures performed in the Capital Health Region (Edmonton) of Alberta. DESIGN: A computer search of hospital discharge abstracts coded for the Canadian Institute for Health Information. SETTING: Two major hospitals in Edmonton. PATIENTS: The study population comprised 9250 patients (9727 procedures [4524, pre-regionalization, 5203 post-regionalization]) who underwent any of 16 major procedures in the 2 years before and the 2 years after restructuring. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic data, Charlson's comorbidity index, number of urgent and emergent cases, death rate, average length of hospital stay and the readmission rate. RESULTS: The post-regionalization patient group was slightly older, had a higher comorbidity index, and fewer urgent and emergent cases. The case volume increased by 15%, and 43.6% of patients used some form of community-based health care services. The median length of hospital stay decreased from 8.0 days pre-regionalization to 7.0 days post-regionalization (p < 0.001). Overall and for specific procedures the death rate was unchanged (3.1% pre-regionalization, 2.4% post-regionalization, p = 0.06). The readmission rates were similar for both groups (8.0% versus 7.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The consolidation of these 16 major surgical procedures had minimal impact on death and readmission rates even though patients in the post-regionalization group were slightly older and had greater comorbidity. There was a significant decline in the length of hospital stay, which occurred nationally over the same period, and a corresponding increase in the use of community-based services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".