A trans‐Canadian positive deviance seminar for paraesophageal hernia surgery: Reporting national postoperative outcomes and consensus recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and length of stay (LOS) varies significantly following paraesophageal hernia surgery. We performed a Canadian multicenter positive deviance (PD) seminar to review individual center and national level data and establish holistic perioperative practice recommendations. METHODS: A national virtual PD seminar was performed in October 2021. Recent best evidence focusing on AEs and LOS was presented. Subsequently, anonymized center-level AE and LOS data collected between 01/2017 and 01/2021 from a prospective, web-based database that tracks postoperative outcomes was presented. The top two performing centers with regards to these metrics were chosen and surgeons from these hospitals discussed elements of their treatment pathways that contributed to these outcomes. Consensus recommendations were then identified with participants independently rating their level of agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-eight surgeons form 8 centers took part in the seminar across 5 Canadian provinces. Of the 680 included patients included, Clavien-Dindo grade I and II/III/IV/V complications occurred in 121/39/12/2 patients (17.8%/5.7%/1.8%/0.3%). Respiratory complications were the most common (effusion 12/680, 1.7% and pneumonia 9/680, 1.3%). Esophageal and gastric perforation occurred in 7 and 4/680, (1.0% and 0.6% respectively). Median LOS varied significantly between institutions (1 day, range 1-3 vs. 7 days, 3-8, p < 0.001). A strong level of agreement was achieved for 10/12 of the consensus statements generated. CONCLUSION: PD seminars provide a supportive forum for centers to review best evidence and experience and generate recommendations based on expert opinion. Further research is ongoing to determine if this approach effectively accomplishes this objective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".