Abstract No.: ABS0455: Perioperative management of hip fracture patients- are we following the guidelines? a retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: No study have explored guidelines on management of hip fracture patients practice in our country. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients above 65 years of age , scheduled for orthopaedic surgery following hip fracture from January 2020 - 21. The hospital information system was used to obtain the clinical details. The details of care pathway received by patient from the time of admission until discharge were collected. For perioperative outcome, patients were followed up to 30 days after hospital admission. . The perioperative management was compared with the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI), guidelines for management of hip fractures and any deviations from compliance was recorded. Our primary objective was to assess the adherence to these guidelines at our hospital. Secondary objectives were to explore the deviations in practice. Results: A total of 126 patients were included in the tsudy.The adherence to the major recommendations are shown in Figure 1. Use of antiplatelet drugs was the reason most commonly cited for delay in surgery. Anaesthesia was administered in 75% of the patients by senior anaesthesiologist. Majority (71.1%) were operated under subarachnoid block [Figure 1]. A total of 32% patients developed intraoperative hypotension and 16% patients developed postoperative complications, the most common was aspiration pneumonia. Out of all patients, 10 patients expired in the postoperative period. Conclusion: We found that the adherence to the AAGBI recommendations was good in several areas but lacked in. preoperative cognitive assessment and involvement of geriatrician. Aged; hip fractures;medical audit; total quality management . . JOURNAL/ijana/04.03/01762628-202203001-00071/inline-graphic1/v/2022-09-30T091728Z/r/image-tiff
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".