The Efficacy of Patient Centered Outcomes in Determining the Effectiveness of Surgical Mentorship in Rural Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advanced laparoscopic skills are difficult to obtain for practicing surgeons.This issue is exponentially more difficult for surgeons in rural practice.Surgical mentorship is one way in which this can be achieved. Material and Methods:A surgical mentorship program was under taken by the author under the auspices of a senior surgeon at the same hospital he practices in.This was under taken to learn the Laparoscopic Transabdominal Pre -Peritoneal herniorrhaphy technique (TAPP).This involved supervision of the first twenty operative procedures.Once there was satisfaction with the technique the remaining surgical procedures were performed independently without supervision.Over a four-year duration, fifty-nine procedures were performed by the first author.Data was assessed retrospectively with the use of an outcome questionnaire adapted from the EuroQol© questionnaire.Results: A patient centered outcomes questionnaire was employed to determine the efficacy of the mentorship program.This was done through a retrospective audit of the first four years of this advanced technique.An established short quality of life questionnaire, the EuroQol© was used and adapted for laparoscopic hernia surgery 94 percent of patients would recommend the surgeon to other patients for this surgery.There were no hernia recurrences and three patients had inguinodynia, all of whom were managed conservatively Discussion: The patient centered outcomes clearly demonstrate satisfaction with the surgical mentorship program.While this was a small study with insufficient follow up for long term post -operative complications, it does show the feasibility of patient centered outcomes in determining the effectiveness of surgical mentorship.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".