EP217 Patient perspectives of informed consent for regional anesthesia for ambulatory surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims Risks and benefits associated with peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) are often discussed between anesthesiologists and patients before surgery. The aim of the study is to determine how patients who had the option of having a PNB for surgical anesthesia felt about the informed consent discussions they had with their anesthesiologist and which parts of these discussions were most beneficial. Methods Patients who underwent ambulatory upper extremity surgery amenable to brachial plexus block (BPB) for surgical anesthesia were identified through the block room records. Patients were contacted by phone after discharge. If agreeable, a qualitative, semi-structured one-on-one interview was completed 1-4 weeks following surgery. Audio of the interviews were recorded and transcribed into de-identified versions for analysis. A team- based approach was used to analyze the transcripts using thematic analysis. Results Thematic saturation was reached at 15 patients. All 15 patients had undergone a BPB for surgical anesthesia. No patients who declined a BPB agreed to participate. The results showed there was overall satisfaction with the consent for a PNB. Interviewees thought that good consent should include a detailed description of the patients’ experience, a relaxed and reassuring bedside manner, a discussion of specific risks, description of the benefits, personalized advice based on prior experience, and the use of supplemental visual materials. Participants described reassurance or potential to be reassured if they were informed about the block process. Conclusions Patients emphasized that strong consent procedures include many other aspects outside of a description of risks.
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 | 0.035 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".