Rural general surgeon confidence with managing vascular emergencies: A national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): Life and limb threatening vascular emergencies often present to rural hospitals where only general surgery services are available. It is known that Australian rural general surgical centres encounter 10-20 emergency vascular surgery procedures annually. This study aimed to assess rural general surgeons' confidence managing emergent vascular procedures. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN: A survey was distributed to Australian rural general surgeons to determine their confidence (Yes/No) in performing emergent vascular procedures including limb revascularisation, revising arterio-venous (AV) fistulas, open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA)/coeliac embolectomy, limb embolectomy, vascular access catheter insertion and limb amputation (digit, forefoot, below knee and above knee). Confidence level was compared with surgeon demographics and training. Variables were compared using univariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Sixteen per cent (67/410) of all Australian rural general surgeons responded to the survey. Increased age, years since fellowship and training prior to 1995 (when separation of Australian vascular and general surgery occurred) were associated with greater confidence in limb revascularisation, revising AV fistulas, open repair of ruptured AAA, SMA/coeliac embolectomy, and limb embolectomy (p < 0.05). Surgeons who completed >6 months of vascular surgery training were more comfortable with SMA/coeliac embolectomy (49% vs. 17%, p = 0.01) and limb embolectomy (59% vs. 28%, p = 0.02). Confidence in performing limb amputation was similar across surgeon demographics and training (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Recently graduated rural general surgeons do not feel confident in managing vascular emergencies. Additional vascular surgery training should be considered as part of general surgical training and rural general surgical fellowships.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".