Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury Care in Canada: A Survey of Canadian Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialized centers of care for persons sustaining a traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) have been established in many countries, but the ideal system of care has not been defined. The objective of this study was to describe care delivery, with a focus on structures and services, for persons with tSCI in Canada. A survey was sent to 26 facilities (12 acute, 11 rehabilitation, and three integrated) from eight provinces participating in the Access to Care and Timing project. The survey included questions about: 1) care provision; 2) structural attributes and; 3) service availability. Survey completion rate was 100%. Data sources used to complete the survey were the Rick Hansen Spinal Cord Injury Registry, other hospital databases, clinical protocols, and subject matter experts. Acute and rehabilitation care provided by integrated facilities were described separately, resulting in data from 15 acute and 14 rehabilitation facilities. The number of admissions for tSCI over a 12-month period between 2009-2011 ranged from 17 to 104 (median 39), and 11 to 96 (median 32), for acute and rehabilitation facilities, respectively. Grouping of patients was reported by 8/15 acute and 10/14 rehabilitation facilities. Criteria for admission to the inpatient rehabilitation facilities varied among facilities (25 different criteria reported). Results from the survey revealed similarities in the basic structure and the provision of general services, but also some differences in the degree of specialization of care for persons with tSCI. Continued work on the impact of specialized care for both the patient and healthcare system is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".