A235 EXPLORING PATIENT FACTORS FOR CANCELLED OR MISSED APPOINTMENTS TO AN URGENT GASTROENTEROLOGY OUTPATIENT CLINIC.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology reports that wait times to see a gastroenterologist are too long, even for urgent problems. Cancellations and no-shows compound this problem and lead to poor services utilization. A weekly urgent GI clinic started at St Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in March 2014 to improve timely access for patients. The clinic accepted referrals from the emergency room (ER) and urgent care with a capacity of 6 patients per week booked within 3 weeks of referral. The cancellation and absence rate from the clinic was 25% in the first 6 months despite patients receiving mail and phone reminder. Studies in no-show predictors focus on primary care, pediatric population and routine outpatient appointments. Published studies on absence rate in urgent clinic settings are very limited. The present study explores patient factors for the high absence rate at our urgent GI clinic. Retrospective review of patients booked to the urgent GI clinic between March and September 2014 that were absent at their appointment. The patient demographics, reasons for referrals, duration of symptoms were reviewed from the chart. The patients were contacted to explain why they missed their appointment and were offered to be rebooked. Between March and October 2014, 37 patients (25%) were absent for their appointment to the urgent GI clinic. The average age of patients was 51 years, and 43% were females. The mean duration of symptoms was 28.2 weeks, but 56% of patients had more acute symptoms for 1 week or less when presenting to ER or urgent care. The reasons for referrals included lower GI bleeding (24%), upper GI bleeding (22%), abdominal pain (16%), dysphagia (8%), anemia (5%) and inflammatory bowel disease (5%). Several attempts were made to contact patients, and 22/37 (59%) were reached. Of the 22 patients, 10 elected to cancel without rebooking, 3 were seen as inpatients, and 3 were seen by another outpatient gastroenterologist. Only 6/22 (27%) were rebooked to another urgent clinic appointment. The urgent GI clinic is a useful means for seeing patients with subacute GI illness but has an unacceptably high rate of missed appointments. Of the patients we contacted, only 27% were rebooked back to the urgent clinic. Almost half elected not to rebook suggesting that an urgent referral may not have been appropriate. On the other hand, 3 patients were admitted, suggesting that outpatient management may not have been suitable either, and 3 patients decided to follow up with their established gastroenterologist. The urgent GI clinic now screens all referrals for appropriateness, and does not see patients seen within the past year by another gastroenterologist. Follow-up data will hopefully demonstrate reduction in absence rate with this new strategy. None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».