Clearing the surgical backlog caused by COVID-19 in Ontario: a time series modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To mitigate the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), jurisdictions worldwide ramped down nonemergent surgeries, creating a global surgical backlog. We sought to estimate the size of the nonemergent surgical backlog during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada, and the time and resources required to clear the backlog. METHODS: We used 6 Ontario or Canadian population administrative sources to obtain data covering part or all of the period between Jan. 1, 2017, and June 13, 2020, on historical volumes and operating room throughput distributions by surgery type and region, and lengths of stay in ward and intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We used time series forecasting, queuing models and probabilistic sensitivity analysis to estimate the size of the backlog and clearance time for a +10% (+1 day per week at 50% capacity) surge scenario. RESULTS: Between Mar. 15 and June 13, 2020, the estimated backlog in Ontario was 148 364 surgeries (95% prediction interval 124 508-174 589), an average weekly increase of 11 413 surgeries. Estimated backlog clearance time is 84 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI] 46-145), with an estimated weekly throughput of 717 patients (95% CI 326-1367) requiring 719 operating room hours (95% CI 431-1038), 265 ward beds (95% CI 87-678) and 9 ICU beds (95% CI 4-20) per week. INTERPRETATION: The magnitude of the surgical backlog from COVID-19 raises serious implications for the recovery phase in Ontario. Our framework for modelling surgical backlog recovery can be adapted to other jurisdictions, using local data to assist with planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".