Patient-centered perspectives on perioperative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The collection and evaluation of patient-reported outcomes is essential to the development of patient and family centered care. Current patient surveying techniques are limited by delayed response times and restriction to specific health systems. The use of random-domain intercept technology (RDIT), by Real-Time Interactive World-Wide Intelligence (RIWI, Toronto, ON, Canada) mitigates current barriers by creating a dynamic real-time feedback environment and providing a mass sampling technique. Methods RDIT was employed to survey a wide sample of respondents across the United States (US). Respondents who self-identified as having had a surgical procedure or cared for someone having a surgical procedure were included in the analysis. Results 1,004 participants completed the survey and answered questions regarding demographics, perioperative details, sentiments on postoperative recovery, postoperative clinical endpoints, sentiments on healthcare professionals, and opinions on future surgical care. Discussion The results of this cross-sectional study identified areas with potential for improvement in the patient perioperative experience that could improve the patient experience. This novel use of RDIT provided a valuable tool for real-time feedback and mass sampling allowing the creation of a dynamic healthcare environment that fosters timely and targeted improvements to patient experiences and outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".