The Canadian Survey of Standards of Electroconvulsive Therapy Practice: A Call for Accreditation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report the results of the policies and procedures subsection of a nationwide electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) survey: Canadian Electroconvulsive Therapy Survey/Enquête canadienne sur les electrochocs. METHOD: We contacted 1273 registered health care institutions in Canada and invited the 175 centres identified as providing ECT to complete a comprehensive postal questionnaire. Nonresponding sites were repeatedly reminded and then eventually contacted by telephone. RESULTS: Sixty-one per cent (107/175) of the institutions returned survey questionnaires. Most (84%) of the responding sites have a written general policy for the delivery of ECT. Only 27% of respondents indicated having some written policy for managing concurrent medications during ECT, and practice was quite variable regarding individual psychotropics. Informed consent was usually obtained by the attending physician (88%), and most sites indicated conveying information before ECT by using interdisciplinary and multimodal means. Almost all of the sites (93%) discharged outpatients with accompaniment home by a responsible adult. CONCLUSIONS: It is reassuring to note that general ECT policies and procedures do exist in most Canadian ECT centres. Wider variations in practice were observed in several areas, such as the elements of consent provided to patients and families, the use of concurrent medications, and the degree of supervision on discharge home after outpatient ECT. However, adherence to these policies was not captured by the results of the survey. Based on experiences in other countries, establishing a Canadian ECT accreditation service could further improve standards of practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".