Effect of length time to surgery on postoperative hospital length of stay among neurosurgical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In most hospitals, inpatient urgent surgery is triaged based on the degree of urgency and time of surgical booking. A longer wait for semi-urgent surgery due to sharing resources between specialties might impact the postoperative course. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of length time to semi- urgent surgery on postoperative hospital length of stay among neurosurgical patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted included all admitted adult patients placed on semi-urgent University of Alberta Hospital surgical list between 2008 and 2013. Linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. The main exposure variable was time from surgical booking to the time of surgery, and the outcome variable was time from surgery to discharge. RESULTS: A total of 1367 neurosurgical cases were included in the study. The mean age was 54.3 years. The mean length of time in the hospital before and after surgery was 1.2 and 12.5 days, respectively. Overall, the time from booking to surgery did not affect the time from surgery to discharge. Increased age, higher ASA score, and surgeries performed after 24 h from booking in the group of patients who were discharged to another facility were associated with a longer postoperative stay. CONCLUSION: Neurosurgery patients booked for surgery to be done within 24 h waited longer to have their procedure completed. Overall, there was no significant association between length of time waiting for surgery and postoperative stay, although there was an increase in postoperative stays among patients who were discharged to another facility and had their surgeries performed after 24 h.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".