A97 QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN QUALITY OF REFERRALS RECEIVED BY IBD SPECIALISTS AND PATIENT OUTCOMES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Most speciality inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care can only be accessed through a referral. Timely access to specialty care has been associated with improved disease-related outcomes. To receive appropriate care, the referral needs to include high quality information. To date, no research has explored the association between referral quality and IBD patient outcomes. The study objectives were to determine if the quality of referrals to a collaborative IBD program influenced triage accuracy, wait times, and patient outcomes. 200 referrals to a collaborative IBD program in Nova Scotia, Canada for patients with confirmed or suspected IBD were reviewed. Referral quality was evaluated as low, moderate or high quality using an evidence and consensus-based metric. The association between referral quality and patient outcomes (wait time, hospitalizations, disease flares and additional referrals) was assessed using multivariate regression analysis. The majority of referrals for IBD speciality care received by the program were categorized as being low quality. The findings of this study also suggest that quality of referral influences wait times and patient outcomes including disease flares and IBD-related hospitalizations. In particular, we noted that moderate-high quality referrals that included a diagnosis, were legible, were sent by GIs, nurse practitioners or emergency room physicians, had shorter wait times. Low quality referrals were associated with longer wait times. Additionally, we noted that patients who had referrals that included a diagnosis and were legible had fewer disease flares and IBD-related hospitalizations than referrals that did not included this information, presumably due to shorter wait time. Patients with a low quality referral to IBD speciality care may experience longer wait times and increased healthcare resource utilization than patients with higher quality referrals. Improvements in referral-based communication and content quality are needed. Defining minimum referral quality expectations and facilitation of high quality referrals through the development of standardized referral forms could be a solution to this problem. Specialist recommendations for first-line investigations and treatments for IBD patients waiting to be seen in post-triage communication to referring physicians could reduce healthcare resource utilization. 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 | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 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 ».