Patient perspectives on wait times and the impact on their life: A waiting room survey in a chronic pain clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Chronic pain is a debilitating condition that requires prompt access to care for effective treatment. Wait times for care often exceed benchmark recommendations, with potential consequences to patient health outcomes. The goal of this paper is to gain the perspectives of patients attending a chronic pain clinic regarding the acceptability of current wait times and the impact of their experiences of waiting for chronic pain care. METHODS: The study took place in a chronic pain clinic at an academic-affiliated teaching hospital in Ottawa, Canada, which housed seven clinicians at the time of the study. New patients attending the chronic pain clinic between July 14, 2014 and August 5, 2015 were eligible to participate based on the availability of the research and clerical staff who administered the survey on a variety of days over the course of the study. Patients completed a self-administered 29-item survey. The survey took approximately five to ten minutes to complete. Questions pertained to patients' socioeconomic factors, chronicity and burden of pain symptoms, and satisfaction with current wait times. Actual wait times were self-reported. Survey results were entered into an Excel spreadsheet, exported to SPSS, and coded numerically to facilitate descriptive analyses using comparative graphs and tables. Open-text responses were reviewed by the authors. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients completed the survey. While 83% of patients stated that their ideal wait time was less than three months, 32% reported receiving an appointment within this period, and 31% reported waiting a year or more. Only 37% of patients felt the wait time for their appointment was appropriate. During their wait, 41% of patients reported receiving written information about chronic pain and 47% were referred to a local chronic pain management group. 94% reported interference with social/recreational activities and normal activities of daily living, 31% had to miss work or school due to the frequency of ongoing symptoms, and 22% reported being unable to attend work or school altogether. Furthermore, 37% of patients reported visiting the emergency room within the previous year and 65% worried about having a serious undiagnosed disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that wait times for chronic pain care, even those triaged as urgent cases, far exceeded what patients considered ideal. Only a third of patients received care within three months of making their appointment, while nearly another third waited over a year. During the waiting period, nearly all patients experienced some impact on their day-to-day activities and work or school attendance, half were unemployed, and nearly a quarter reported a complete inability to attend work or school because of pain. IMPLICATIONS: Wait times for chronic pain care exceed timelines deemed acceptable by patients, causing anxiety and reducing function. The patient perspective must be considered in initiatives attempting to improve access to care for this population with specific needs and goals. Innovative solutions, such as electronic consultation and shared care models, hold promise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".