Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the recent report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, [i]n the minds of many Canadians, the quality of our health care system should be judged, first and foremost, by its ability to provide timely access to the care people need. (2) The issue of waiting times in health care will only become more significant in light of cost-constraints in the public system, the proliferation of medical technologies, and the aging population. In addition to waiting times being the subject of public policy and debate, they are also at issue in a recently commenced class action. The action arose when Anahit Cilinger, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 1999, was still awaiting radiation treatment in January 2000. Frustrated with waiting, Ms. Cilinger returned to her native Turkey for the treatment, which cost her approximately $12,000 USD. (3) Ms. Cilinger then initiated a class action on behalf of herself and other persons suffering from breast cancer who had been unable to obtain radiation therapy within eight weeks of surgery. The action alleged that twelve Quebec hospitals were liable for leaving patients waiting beyond what is medically recommended, in breach of their statutory obligations. The action also named the Quebec government as a defendant, for its alleged failure to provide adequate funding, resulting in the hospitals being unable to hire an adequate number of radiologists or purchase sufficient equipment. Although Biship J.C.S. certified the class action against the hospital defendants, the Court refused to allow the action to proceed against the Quebec government, a decision that was upheld on appeal. (4) Significance of the Case Although there have been numerous cases advancing claims against hospitals, this case is significant in a number of respects. Historically, the duties owed by a hospital to a patient were limited to providing adequate staff and properly maintaining the facility and equipment. Although these duties have been broadened to include a duty to establish systems for the safe operation of the hospital, (5) this has typically been limited to requiring the establishment of policies or procedures to protect against injuries. For example, in Lacombe c. Hopital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, the defendant hospital was found liable for failing to have an alarm bell available for patients waiting for treatment, and failing to have a policy instructing emergency room nurses to re-evaluate the condition of patients waiting for care. (6) In comparison, Cilinger addresses the much broader issue of hospital waiting time policies and procedures, and the reasonableness of resource allocation decisions. The possible ramifications in Cilinger are also more far-reaching. For example, the Lacombe judgment might require that the hospital formulate new policies for monitoring patients and install alarm devices. Comparatively, the result of Cilinger might be that in order to avoid liability, a hospital has to determine what the appropriate waiting times are for every available procedure, and to implement policies to ensure these appropriate times are met. In addition to examining the broader issue of hospital liability at the systemic level, this case also raises the issue of the defence of limited resources. Although the Court declined an application to join the Quebec government as a party to the proceedings, presumably the hospitals will defend any finding of negligence on the basis that limited resources precluded any higher standard of care than that which was delivered. With regard to physicians, Robertson notes that courts have accepted that the standard of care may take into account the resources and facilities available, and that if a hospital does not have a particular piece of equipment, a doctor cannot be liable for a failure to use it. However, there could be liability where a particular test is available at the hospital, but a doctor chooses not to avail herself of it for cost-containment reasons. …
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.010 |
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".