Optimizing discharge decision‐making in colorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study of discharge practices in a recently implemented enhanced recovery pathway
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The objectives of this project were (1) to compare time to readiness for discharge by set criteria and actual length of stay (LOS) in a newly implemented colorectal enhanced recovery pathway and (2) to identify reasons for delayed hospital discharge. METHOD: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 73 adult patients (age 67 ± 14 years, 56% men, 51% laparoscopic, 13% stoma creation) undergoing elective colorectal surgery in a university hospital with a recently implemented recovery pathway (<2 years). Time to readiness for discharge (oral intake, flatus, pain control, ability to walk, and no complications) was compared to actual LOS using a correlation-adjusted log-rank test. The treating team was interviewed, and thematic analysis was used to identify reasons for patients remaining in hospital after discharge criteria (DC) were achieved. RESULTS: Median LOS was 6 (4-8) days and median time to readiness for discharge was 5 (3-8) days (P < 0.001). Twenty-eight patients (37%) remained in hospital after DC were achieved. Although some delayed discharges were medically justified (e.g., workup [13%] or treatment of complications not captured by DC [2.6%]), unnecessary hospital stays were common (e.g., perceived need for observation [16%], or patients not willing to be discharged [11%]). CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary hospital stays were common within a recently implemented enhanced recovery pathway and represent a target for quality improvement. Efforts should be directed at optimizing patient education regarding discharge expectations, early consultation of the discharge planning team and improving discharge decision-making using standardized DC.
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.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it