ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie
Selective centralized booking as a low-cost alternative to centralized referral.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Centralized referral systems have been successfully implemented to shorten and equalize surgical wait times; however, ongoing expenses make sustaining these projects challenging. We trialed a low-cost centralized booking project for hernia surgery in a community hospital from July to November 2019. Eligible patients (i.e., those with visible or palpable inguinal or umbilical hernias who were agreeable to an open mesh repair) were booked with the first available surgeon after initial consultation. Centrally booked patients with either inguinal or umbilical hernias waited a mean of 82 (standard deviation [SD] 32) and 80 (SD 66) days, respectively, while those who did not use the centralized system waited 137 (SD 89) and 181 (SD 92) days, respectively. Centralized booking increased operating room utilization as a larger pool of patients was available to call when last-minute cancellation occurred; centralized booking also effectively equalized wait-lists among 6 surgeons. Selective centralized booking is a promising concept that led to more efficient utilization of available operating room time with a significant decrease in wait times; this system could potentially improve access for all patients awaiting general surgery without requiring additional funding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.