Ifit's Reusable Why not Reuse it? The Reuse of\nSingle Use Medical Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reprocessing and subsequent reuse of medical devices labelled by the manufacturer as 'single-use only' is a cost cutting strategy employed by many healthcare centres. However, attempting to extend the life of a device labelled as 'single-use only' raises a number of unique concerns surrounding the issue of legal liability specifically who should bear responsibility if someone suffers harm as a result of a reprocessed single-use device. Following an overview of the current regulatory environment, the potential tortious liability attaching to those who may be implicated in the reprocessing chain is discussed. Specifically, this paper examines the duty and standard ofcare owed byregulatory bodies, original manufacturers, third-party reprocessors, healthcare facilities and care providers in the reuse of devices labelled as 'single-use only'. Finally, bydrawing on various international practices the paper concludes by advocating for regulatory reform to better provide proactive oversight in the area of reuse in Canada.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| 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 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".