A58 PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH ENDOSCOPY UNITS: THE EDMONTON EXPERIENCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Endoscopy services in the Edmonton Zone (EZ) are provided by 8 endoscopy units. Implementation of the Global Rating Scale (GRS) as a measure of endoscopy unit quality in the EZ was previously based at individual sites, with no coordination across the EZ. This led to poor uptake of the GRS. In September 2015, Alberta Health Services leadership partnered with Gastroenterology to provide quality improvement (QI) resources across the EZ to support the GRS. Part of this project involved introducing a patient satisfaction survey to be utilized by all EZ endoscopy units to inform the ongoing QI process. The project aim was to develop and implement a uniform process to assess patient satisfaction with endoscopy units across the EZ. A patient satisfaction survey was developed using multiple stakeholders from the five principal endoscopy units within AHS and Covenant Health, including departments of Integrated Quality Management, Patient Engagement and Primary Data Support, as well as EZ Gastroenterologists. Survey distribution began April 1, 2016. At each site, two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly selected to receive the survey daily. The survey was discussed with patients pre-procedure and distributed at discharge by nursing staff. After six months, data was collated and reported to the EZ GRS/Quality Committee and individual endoscopy units. 595 surveys were distributed from April 1, 2016 to Sept 30, 2016. Overall response rate was 220 (37%), which varied by site (range 30–47%). 99.5% of respondents felt they had been treated with courtesy and respect. Respondents reported confidence/trust in endoscopy staff (100% for endoscopist, 99.6% for nurse), and satisfaction with explanations received (99.0% for endoscopist, 99.5% for nurse). 92.7% of patients were comfortable/very comfortable during the colonoscopy. Higher than expected numbers of respondents were not made aware by endoscopy unit staff that they were free to withdraw consent at any time (39.3% for endoscopist, 34.3% for nurse). 39% of patients reported difficulty with bowel preparation; of these 31.7% did not have a number to call with questions. 9.2% of patients reported requiring a translator, but only 33% of these were offered one. This zone-based patient satisfaction survey has enabled the EZ to identify ways to improve the patient endoscopy experience, such as clarifying our pre-procedure consent information, and improving pre-procedure support and translation. Bowel preparation information will require more work. GRS items across the EZ improved due to implementation of the patient survey. The provision of centralized resources and personnel by AHS was integral to the success of this process, and will be required to entrench QI as part of usual business for EZ endoscopy units. 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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».