A survey of Canadian surgeons on the indications for home care nursing following vascular surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent evidence suggests that home care nursing is variably prescribed after vascular surgery, and may reduce emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. We therefore sought to characterize the indications for home care nursing following vascular surgery from the surgeon's perspective. Methods: An online survey was distributed to the 141 members of the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery with questions related to home care nursing after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair and open or hybrid revascularization for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). We included all questionnaires in our analysis; the frequency denominator changes according to the number of respondents who completed each survey item. Results: There were 46 survey respondents (33% of 141) from across the country. A total of 28 (62% of 45) worked in a teaching hospital. Home care nursing was routinely prescribed by 5%, 10%, 31% and 41% of respondents following CEA, EVAR, open AAA repair and open or hybrid revascularization for PAD, respectively. Across all procedure types, the same procedure-related criteria were most often deemed to warrant a prescription for home care nursing: surgical site infection, wound complications (e.g., open wound, lymphatic leak) and use of negative-pressure wound therapy. Across all procedure types, lack of social support, physical frailty and cognitive impairment were most frequently identified as patient-specific considerations for prescribing home care nursing. Few respondents reported restrictions or standards that informed their prescribing practice. Conclusion: Most surgeon respondents agreed on the indications for home care nursing after vascular surgery. However, evidence-based standards to guide patient selection for home care nursing after vascular surgery are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".