2015
DOI: 10.1503/cjs.014215
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interpretation of surgical neuromonitoring data in canada: author response

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
(1 reference statement)
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In particular, CANM believes very strongly that the individual in the room should be the person performing the interpretation. This situation seems ideal (the US medicare systems reimburses more for in-room interpretation than remote), but there remains controversy as to who should be interpreting (in the room or elsewhere) in Canada 7 - 9 and especially if it should be a “professional” (by which I mean a PhD or MD) 10 some of which is discussed in the current paper. Clearly, whether a person enters training with a BSc or a PhD will greatly impact the training they require.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…In particular, CANM believes very strongly that the individual in the room should be the person performing the interpretation. This situation seems ideal (the US medicare systems reimburses more for in-room interpretation than remote), but there remains controversy as to who should be interpreting (in the room or elsewhere) in Canada 7 - 9 and especially if it should be a “professional” (by which I mean a PhD or MD) 10 some of which is discussed in the current paper. Clearly, whether a person enters training with a BSc or a PhD will greatly impact the training they require.…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
“…However, even between web-based surveys, response rates can vary as shown by two surveys conducted in Canada, done through the organisation affiliates. A reported response rate of 79% [ 17 ] was received for the one, while only 227 completed responses were received for the other with unknown response rate [ 22 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%