Perioperative Care for Patients with Neuromuscular Disorders in the Netherlands – A Questionnaire Study Among Anaesthesiologists, Neurologists and Clinical Geneticists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with neuromuscular disorders are at increased risk of suffering perioperative complications. Current knowledge concerning this topic is based on small retrospective studies and expert opinion. Therefore, an individualized multidisciplinary approach to perioperative anaesthesia planning is invaluable to anticipate difficulties and to optimize outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current practice regarding preoperative counselling and perioperative care of neuromuscular patients, with the aim to facilitate standardization and improvement of perioperative care for neuromuscular patients. METHODS: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional, observational study was conducted between July, 1st 2020 and December, 31st, 2020 in Dutch anaesthesia, neurology and clinical genetics departments. Main outcome measures were 1.) frequency of consultation requests for neuromuscular patients prior to surgery, 2.) current practice, educational activities and departmental approach to this topic and 3.) preoperative counselling of neuromuscular patients. RESULTS: A total of 83 departments participated. Consultations for a neuromuscular patient scheduled for anaesthesia were requested from anaesthesia and neurology department only infrequently. Local guidelines concerning perioperative care of neuromuscular patients were available in 36.4% of the participating departments. Quality of specific training for residents and staff anaesthetists/neurologists covering perioperative care of neuromuscular patients was rated as 'very good' or 'good' by 42.9%. Neuromuscular patients scheduled for surgery were 'always' or 'often' discussed in multidisciplinary meetings involving anaesthesiologists and neurologists in 20.8% of the participating departments. CONCLUSION: Perioperative care for neuromuscular patients in the Netherlands is highly variable and might benefit from guidelines, education of health care professionals and multidisciplinary meetings between anaesthesiologists and neurologists on a regular basis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".