A108 AN EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF A CENTRALIZED REFERRAL AND BOOKING PROCESS ON WAIT TIMES FOR COLONOSCOPIES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Colonoscopies in the majority of centres in Ontario are booked by individual endoscopists via their individual offices (practices). As such, wait times for procedures will vary significant from centre to centre, or even from endoscopist to endoscopist at the same centre, depending on individual expertise, experience, procedure types, and local availability of endoscopic resources. This system could lead to significant variability in access to care for patients. Aims This study analyzed the effect of implementing a centralized referral and booking process for colonoscopy, for a specific indication, at a single centre in Ontario. Methods This was a single centre retrospective study analyzing wait times for patients that underwent a colonoscopy at Cambridge Memorial Hospital (CMH) between April 2017 to July 2022 for either positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or fecal immunochemistry test (FIT). The province of Ontario transitioned from FOBT to FIT as the primary tool for colon cancer screening in 2019. Prior to this transition, colonoscopy for positive FOBT performed at CMH were booked by individual endoscopists, with wait times from referral to procedure having great variability. In conjunction with Ontario’s transition to FIT for colon cancer screening, all endoscopists at CMH agreed to participate in a centralized referral and booking process specifically for colonoscopy for positive FIT indication. A chart review of all patients undergoing colonoscopy for either FOBT (non central booking) or FIT (central booking). Patients that self-delayed were excluded. Wait times (WT) was calculated as time between date of referral and date of procedure. The effect of the centralized booking system on wait times was then assessed using statistical analysis. Results In total, 344 patients were included for analysis from before March 2019 (non centralized booking process). The average WT in this group was determined to be 99.2 days (range 50-171 days), of which 147 patients had a WT of less than 56 days (42.7%). In contrast, a total 572 patients were included for analysis after March 2019 (centralized booking process), the average WT was determined to be 44.2 days (range 32-59 days), of which, 526 patients had a WT of less than 56 days (92.0%). The centralized booking process reduced average wait times by 55 days (55.4%), and improved procedure WTs meeting mandated time frame of 56 days by 49.3%. This improvement in wait times was most pronounced for endoscopists with the longest wait times in a non centralized system. Conclusions The implementation of a centralized referral and booking process (for a single indication for colonoscopy) was associated with significantly reduced WTs. These findings suggest a centralized referral and booking process (for well defined clinical needs) can potentially significantly improve patient wait times. Funding Agencies 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 | 0,008 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».