Assessing patient safety in Canadian ambulatory surgery facilities: A national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There has been increased interest regarding patient safety and standards of care in Canadian ambulatory surgery facilities where surgical procedures are performed. The Canadian Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities (CAAASF) is a national organization formed to establish and maintain standards to ensure that surgical procedures conducted outside of public hospitals are performed safely. Objective To determine how many procedures are performed annually at CAAASF member sites, and to examine complication rates and several key patient safety practices. Methods All 69 facilities accredited by the CAAASF were surveyed. The survey focused on procedural data, complication rates and patient safety interventions. Results In 2010, 40,240 estimated procedures were performed. A total of 263 (0.007%) complications were reported. Sixteen (0.0004%) patients required reoperations in hospital and 19 (0.0004%) patients required transfer to hospital on the day of surgery. There were only two mortalities within 30 days of surgery reported in the past five years. With regard to patient safety practices, 93% used antimicrobial prophylaxis, 100% used strategies to maintain normothermia and 82% used measures for venous thromboembolism prevention. Conclusion The present study is the first to report on the Canadian experience in ambulatory surgery facilities and provides insight into current practices at these facilities. Appropriate accreditation of ambulatory surgery facilities, well-established patient safety-related standards of care, careful patient selection and procedures performed by qualified health care professionals with appropriate certification practicing within the scope of their practice form the basis for safe and effective ambulatory surgery.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".