ArticleBMJ open2026
Implementation determinants of a planned machine learning-enabled surgical scheduling system in a high-volume orthopaedic centre in Canada: qualitative findings.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesElective non-emergent surgical wait times have increased across countries such as Canada, straining operating room (OR) resources and affecting patient outcomes and healthcare spending. Manual scheduling systems in Ontario orthopaedic centres create wide variations in wait times, with recent declines in meeting benchmark targets despite increased procedure volumes. Challenges stem from fragmented referral processes, outdated scheduling methods and resource constraints. Artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) offer potential solutions for optimising scheduling; however, their implementation remains inconsistent. This study aims to identify determinants affecting the rollout of a new ML-driven automated scheduling system at a high-volume elective orthopaedic surgery centre.
designA qualitative description approach supported by implementation science frameworks.
settingA high-volume elective orthopaedic surgery unit at a Canadian tertiary care centre.
participants17 individuals from clinical, administrative and leadership roles who were directly involved in surgical scheduling.
interventionsA new ML-driven automated surgical scheduling system. OUTCOMES: Perceptions of the proposed new surgical scheduling system (barriers and enablers of implementation, recommendations for improvement).
resultsThree main themes were identified, capturing challenges and enablers in the existing scheduling system: system functionality, process-related factors and resource constraints.Participants described substantial inefficiencies in the existing manual scheduling system, including outdated software, fragmented information systems, inconsistent communication and resource constraints. Across interest-holder groups, there was broad but variable perceived support for a planned ML-enabled scheduling system, particularly for improving duration prediction, access to scheduling data and reporting, alongside concerns about system complexity, workflow fit, training and resource implications. Interest-holders emphasised the importance of user-friendly design, interoperability, responsive training, phased implementation and ongoing feedback.
conclusionsThis pre-implementation qualitative study identified significant process and resource limitations in manual orthopaedic surgical scheduling, but interest-holder support for a well-designed ML-driven system is strong. While participants anticipated potential benefits for scheduling accuracy, throughput and resource allocation, these perceived advantages will require meaningful user engagement, robust training, phased rollout and evaluation in subsequent implementation and outcome studies.
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.