A survey of acute pain service in Canadian teaching hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first national survey to ascertain the prevalence, structure, and functioning of the APS in Canadian university affiliated hospitals was conducted in 1991. This is a follow-up survey to assess the current status of the APS in Canada. METHODS: We requested completion of a 26-question survey from lead personnel of the APS teams or Anesthesia departments of Canadian teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Among the 32 centers that were contacted, 21 (65.6%) responded. Of these respondents, 18 (85.7%) indicated that they have a structured APS (72.22% adults, 5.56% pediatrics, 22.22% mixed). Among the 18 centers with an APS, 16 of the services are led by an anesthesiologist. Eight centers (44.44%) have a regional anesthesia group, of which five (27.75%) have a regional anesthesia group that is distinct from the APS team. Nine centers (50%) offer ambulatory nerve catheter analgesia after discharge home. Fifteen centers (83.33%) use standardized order sets, and 13 centers (72.22%) use an electronic record for APS. More than 50% of the centers use intravenous lidocaine and ketamine as a part of their multimodal analgesia. CONCLUSION: Most Canadian teaching hospitals do have a functioning APS. This survey has the potential to generate research questions about the availability of standardized and advanced acute pain management in Canada's teaching hospitals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".