132. AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE OPERATING ROOM: FLUSHING MONEY DOWN THE TOILET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, we wanted to compare the cost of liquid waste disposal from the operating rooms (ORs) via a 3rd party medical waste company, with utilization of the sewer system at Kingston General Hospital. Secondly, we sought to assess national trends in liquid waste disposal, in order to make a national recommendation for liquid waste disposal from the OR. Method: The hospital cost for OR liquid waste disposal at Kingston General Hospital was calculated by weighing the liquid waste from 871 surgical cases over a 5-week period in 2008. The materials, manpower and weight of the waste were used to calculate the costs for the two methods of liquid waste disposal. Seventy teaching hospitals across Canada were surveyed to determine their practice of liquid waste disposal in the OR. Results: The raw cost per kg of liquid waste disposal using a medical waste company was found to be 57.126 % greater than utilizing the sewer system. Using the sewer system resulted in a total cost reduction of 40% compared with using a medical waste company. Sixty-three out of seventy teaching hospitals across the nation (90%) were found to utilize medical waste companies, while seven out of seventy hospitals (10%) utilized the sewer system to dispose of liquid waste. Conclusion: The sewer system is an under-utilized yet safe, legal, and cost effective way to dispose of liquid waste from the OR. Using the sewer system to dispose of liquid waste would save the Canadian health care system millions of dollars compared with disposal via medical waste companies.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".