Assessing Patient Satisfaction and Experience With an Electronic Referral Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to identify patients' perception of an eReferral process and e-mail notification system. METHODS: Patients within the Waterloo Wellington Local Health Integration Network who registered their e-mail address with physicians who adopted the eReferral system, and therefore received e-mail notifications of their booked appointment, were invited to complete an online satisfaction survey. This patient experience survey is an ongoing online link embedded within the confirmation e-mail of the booked appointment. The survey is hosted on the eReferral solution platform and has been operational since November 2017. The survey consists of 8 questions with 3 main categories to assess patients' opinion of their experience of the referral process and notification system using a 5-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients have completed the patient satisfaction survey within this reporting period with a response rate of 15%. In general, 94% of patients agreed that receiving a confirmation e-mail of their booked appointment had improved their experience with the referral process. The majority (94%) agreed that the eReferral process was easy to follow, and 83% agreed that they were able to get the care they needed within a reasonable time. Compared with their past referral experiences, 80% of patients felt more informed throughout this electronic referral process. Using binominal logistic regression, participants whose preferences were considered had 8.06 times higher odds to exhibit satisfaction with the referral process than those who did not. Patients' qualitative responses identified the eReferral process as being quick, efficient, and resulting in a sense of being in control of their own health care. There are some limitations to the system felt by some of the patients who responded to the open-ended questions of the survey. Patients identified the need to add a complementary structure to the notification design consisting of multiple dates and times with a chance to pick the appointment that suits patients best instead of being restricted to only 1 appointment date. A few patients thought that the heading of the e-mail notification system should be more distinguishable for easier tracking. Furthermore, some patients felt the need to add some notes to the initial e-mail advising patients of the next steps throughout their referral process. CONCLUSION: eReferral has improved patients' experience with the referral process. Our findings in this study would support the solution vendor in its efforts to refine and enhance active communication channels with patients for sustainable health care that meets patients' expectations and needs.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».