A70 ACCURACY OF IBD PATIENT WAIT TIME ESTIMATES BY GASTROENTEROLOGISTS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic disease with profound health and socioeconomic burden. Approximately 1 in 150 Canadians live with IBD: the highest prevalence rate in the world. Within Canada, Nova Scotia has the highest age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates of IBD. High levels of need have translated into prolonged wait times: one of the main indicators of healthcare access. Extended wait time can negatively impact physical and mental health outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction of care. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology has recommended GI wait times between 2 weeks and 2 months. However, the 2015 audit of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) Central Zone shows referred patients are waiting over 2 years to see a specialist. 1) To determine whether physicians can accurately estimate the length of time that patients have waited between the referral and intake specialist appointment; 2) To examine physician-related factors that may influence the accuracy of wait time estimation. Luminal gastroenterologists and IBD nurse practitioners practicing within the NHSA Central Zone were administered questionnaires designed to measure practice, practitioner, and systems factors which could influence accuracy of physician wait time estimate. Specialists were asked to estimate the wait time for each of their patients seen that day, based on the level of assigned triage urgency. A retrospective chart review was conducted to verify referral date and wait time duration. A total of six specialists were enrolled as of October 2016. Four (67%) participants were male, with a mean age of 51.60 years (SD=11.06 years). All participants reported working in an academic practice with an existing triage process. Five physicians reported using a central triage system for referrals, while one physician completed personal reviews of referrals. When physicians were asked to estimate the wait time for patients between the referral and seeing specialist, they estimated an average of 32 weeks. According to patient health records, patients waited an average of 49 weeks. When comparing physician-estimated wait times to referral dates a moderate positive association was found (rs=0.542, N=6, p <0.001). Initial results demonstrate a disconnect between perceived patient wait times by specialists and true wait times. These findings support previous research which has suggested, despite increased levels of healthcare expenditure, wait times for medically necessary treatment have not improved. Additional recruitment is ongoing and will allow further analysis of practitioner and system-related factors that effect physician estimates of patient wait times. 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 | 0,003 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».