Day surgery, including the preoperative assessment of the patient: a UK experience by a Belgian anaesthetist.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some European countries like Belgium, a lot of hospitals are today dealing with two extremely real issues: adult day surgery and the preoperative anaesthesia consultation. Although efforts are made, there is often still a search for a clear-cut identity on these subjects. As in the rest of Europe, Belgian political, financial and medical driving forces are strongly favouring the shift of surgical procedures towards more day care practice. However, our country has not already reached the level of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or the USA, where the greater majority of all surgery is ambulatory surgery. The development of new surgical technology, however, favours minimal invasiveness, whereas 'newer' anaesthetic agents result in fast recovery. In setting up real surgical day care facilities, Belgian medical and nursing staff, together with the hospital management, will have to cope with the worldwide existing variation in performing ambulatory surgery, at a hospital level, at a surgeon's and anaesthetist's level and at a provision level. Careful patient selection, conscientious anaesthetic management, and being attentive to caring for a patient leaving the hospital, are the cornerstones of decent ambulatory anaesthesia and surgery, and the key for long-term success. Together with dedicated facilities, it is therefore mandatory to have competent and enthusiastic staff. The nursing director, as well as the medical director of the day unit will have to use their power in order to avoid abuse of ambulatory beds for other purposes. As the perioperative specialist, the anaesthetist is ideally suited for the pre-, per-, and postoperative management of the ambulatory patient. Moreover, concerning the preoperative assessment clinic, UK anaesthetists have organized a valuable and interesting alternative to the expensive and time/manpower consuming system used in the USA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".