Patient Perceptions of Audio and Video Recording in the Operating Room
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine surgical patients' perceptions of hypothetical continuous audio-video OR recording (ORR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Continuous audio-video recording of the operating room (OR), akin to the aviation industry's black box, has been proposed as a means to enhance training, supplement the medical record, and allow large-scale analysis of surgical performance and safety. These recordings would include patients' bodies; yet, understanding of patient perceptions regarding such technology is limited. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted during elective surgery preoperative appointments during a 2-week period in August 2018 at a quaternary care center. Deidentified transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty-nine subjects were interviewed. Subjects recognized the potential for recording to improve surgical quality, safety and training. Subjects also desired access to an objective record of their own surgery, for the purposes of future care, medical-legal evidence, and to satisfy their own curiosity and understanding. Subjects had mixed perceptions regarding OR decorum and thus, differing views on the potential effect of ORR on OR behavior; some imagined that ORR would discourage bad behavior and others worried that it would cause unnecessary anxiety to the surgical team. CONCLUSIONS: Patients have a diverse set of views about the potential benefits, risks, and uses for OR data and consider themselves to be important stakeholders. Our study identifies pathways and potential challenges to implementation of continuous audio/video recording in ORs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".