MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3119503500 · doi:10.3390/curroncol28010043

National Thoracic Surgery Standards Implementation: Barriers, Enablers, and Opportunities

2021· article· en· W3119503500 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Angel Arnaout, Anubha Prashad, Nadine M. Dunk, Jess Rogers, Annemarie Edwards, Mary Argent-Katwala, Christian Finley

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Partnership Against CancerUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth CanadaPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsMedicineAuditWorkloadCardiothoracic surgeryFocus groupPromotion (chess)Quality assuranceQuality managementGeneral partnershipFamily medicineMedical educationSurgeryPathologyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and surgical treatment decision making for thoracic cancers is complex. Moreover, there is demonstrated variability in how each province in Canada delivers cancer care, resulting in disparities in patient outcomes. Recently, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) published pan-Canadian evidence-based standards for the care of thoracic surgery cancer patients. This study was undertaken to assess the degree to which these standards were currently met in practice and to further understand the determinants to their implementation nationally. METHODS: This study was undertaken in two parts: (1) a national survey of thoracic surgeons to assess the perceived extent of implementation of these standards in their institution and province; and (2) formation of a focus group with a representative sample of thoracic surgeons across Canada in a qualitative study to understand the determinants of successful standards implementation. RESULTS: 37 surgeons (33% response rate) participated in the survey; 78% were from academic hospitals. The top categories of standards that were under-implemented included (a) quality assurance processes, data collection and clinician audit and feedback, and (b) ongoing regional planning and workload assessments for thoracic surgeons, and (c) pathology turnaround time target of two weeks and the use of a standardized synoptic pathology report format. Enablers, barriers, and opportunities for standards implementation contextualized the discussion within the focus group. CONCLUSION: Study results demonstrated variation in the implementation of surgery standards across Canada and identified the determinants to the delivery of high quality surgical care. Future work will need to include the promotion and development of quality improvement strategies and effective resource allocation that is aligned with the implementation of thoracic cancer surgery standards in order to improve patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→