OA32 A national survey of rheumatology telephone advice line support: user perspectives
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background/Aims Rheumatology telephone advice line services are struggling to manage increased patient demand. A survey of people with rheumatology arthritis (RA) by the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society (NRAS) was undertaken to explore the experiences and expectations of telephone advice lines users. Methods A 4-week online survey, conducted in August 2024, collected data on demographics, how telephone advice lines function, reasons for contacting the service, whether the advice received was helpful and response times. Ways in which services could be improved was also sought. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis for free text comments. Results A total of 1423 participants completed the survey. The majority were female (n = 1338, 94%), white (n = 1455, 95%) had RA (n = 1288, 91%), with a disease duration of over 6 years (n = 975, 68%) and aged 61-80 years (n = 849, 56%). Most services were automated (n = 1273, 85%), although the preference was to speak to someone directly (n = 889, 59%). 836 (57%) felt that they were listened to in a supportive way. 989 (69%) participants had contacted the service 1-3 times over the last year and 847 (57%) were ‘very likely’ to use the advice line in the future. Participants were made aware of the telephone advice line by the rheumatology nurse (n = 1025, 72%) and it was the main health service participants contacted if they had a problem with their rheumatology condition (n = 1194, 84%). The main reasons for contacting the advice line were experiencing a flare (n = 946, 66%), pain (n = 876, 61) and concerns about medicines (n = 863, 61%). Most participants found the advice given to be ‘helpful-very helpful’ (n = 847, 59%) and were ‘confident to very confident’ (n = 866) they could carry out the advice given. 839 (56%) calls were returned within 48 hours. There were 665 free-text responses on how telephone advice lines services could be improved and these focused on three main areas: 1) increasing the advice line availability. Many services were only operational for a few hours on specific days. People in employment favoured weekend availability. 2) A timely response especially when experiencing pain. Response times were increasing and some participants received no response describing the service as “a very hit and miss process”. 3) Respondents recognised that without adequate resources including sufficient numbers of nurses, services would not be able to respond to patient need. Conclusion Telephone advice lines are highly valued and commonly used by people with inflammatory arthritis. Participants clearly recognised the current pressures and the lack of nurses to respond to calls in a timely manner. There is a clear need for service providers to review current services to enhance the patient experience including; accessibility, call response times and adequate staffing These findings align with those of a recent national survey of nurses providing advice line support (Ryan et al. 2024). Disclosure S. Ryan: None. A. Bosworth: None. S. Matthews: None. K. Jones: 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 | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 ».