A71 INFORMED CONSENT AND BOOKING METHOD IN COLONOSCOPY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Within the Nova Scotia Health Authority, patients are booked for colonoscopy via various routes. Many are seen for consultation in clinic and the informed consent discussion is held with their physician. Patients are also booked directly for colonoscopy (“direct access”) based on information provided in the original referral without having been seen by their physician. Recently, a third route to booking has been introduced which involves consultation in person or via telephone with a registered nurse as part of the Nova Scotia Provincial Colon Cancer Screening Program. This evaluation includes education about the procedure and the bowel preparation. There have been concerns raised as to whether patients booked via direct access have an adequate level of pre-procedural education and are able to provide true informed consent. It is not clear whether patients who have had a pre-procedural consultation with either a physician or nurse are better equipped to provide informed consent compared to those booked direct to procedure. This study aims to evaluate the levels of informed consent for colonoscopy patients depending on the method by which they were booked for their scope. This study is questionnaire-based with surveys being administered to colonoscopy patients at two sites within the NSHA. Surveys are provided to all patients seen for outpatient colonoscopy outside the context of a clinical trial. Patients who have had previous colonoscopy were excluded. The questionnaire was validated based on the input of several health care practitioners and feedback from patients. To date, there have been 17 responses from the pilot study, and 29 responses to the finalized version. Of these, 18 responses were first-time colonoscopy patients and therefore relevant to this study. Data acquisition is ongoing. Thus far, 6 patients (33.3%) were booked after seeing a physician, 7 patients (38.9%) after being screened by a nurse, and 5 (27.8%) were booked direct to procedure. All patients reported being either satisfied (61.1%) or very satisfied (38.9%) with their level of understanding prior to their procedure. All patients stated that they understood the benefits and risks of colonoscopy prior to their procedure. All patients stated that they felt adequately prepared about what was happening to them. his pilot project confirms that patient satisfaction levels with the pre-procedural education they receive before colonoscopy are high. Greater numbers of survey responses will help determine if there are subtle differences in patient satisfaction dependent on the method of booking. This study implies that nurse-driven pre-screening results in similar patient satisfaction levels as the traditional approaches to booking. 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 | 0,132 | 0,192 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,002 |
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 ».