A210 THE IMPACT OF IBD REFERRAL QUALITY ON WAIT TIMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to health and socioeconomic burdens associated with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), timely access to specialist care is important. In Canada, speciality gastroenterology (GI) care is accessed only by referral. To receive timely care, referrals must include a high quantity/quality of information. In 2012, 2 in 3 Canadian specialist physicians surveyed reported a lack of basic information on referrals. Referrals are often returned to referring physicians for more information, which is costly to patients and physicians. Some studies have examined referral quality, but not how the quality of referrals influences patient outcomes. The objectives of this study are to determine if referrals to the Nova Scotia Collaborative IBD (NSCIBD) program contain enough information to allow accurate triage for timely access to care, and how the quality of initial referrals to the NSCIBD program inform patient outcomes (e.g. disease flare, hospitalization) while waiting for specialist consultation. This is an ongoing retrospective cohort study of patients referred for appointments in the NSCIBD program between August 2016–2017. A sample size of 200 was required to have a power of 0.80 (p=0.50). Patients were included if they were referred for a first visit to the NSCIBD program for confirmed or suspected IBD. Referrals were excluded if they were for a non-IBD-related concern, an endoscopic test, or a follow up. Referrals were evaluated using a data abstraction form developed with an IBD specialist and two GI nurse practitioners. Based on the information included, referrals were classified as either low, moderate, or high quality. Descriptive statistics were used for a preliminary analysis of the baseline, cross-sectional data. To date, 150 records have been reviewed. There were 9 high quality referrals (6.0%), 32 moderate (21.0%), and 109 low quality referrals (72.7%). The majority of referrals were from family doctors (49.3%) with 81.1% of those being low quality. On average, patients with low quality referrals had a mean wait time of 48.0 days (SD=173.3, range=0–873 days) until triage and a mean wait time of 29.9 weeks (SD=37.3, range=0–160 weeks) to be seen by a GI. Patients with moderate-high quality referrals had a mean wait time of 16.6 days (SD=21.9, range=0–81 days) for triage and a mean of 16.7 weeks (SD=14.9, range=1–65 weeks) to be seen by a GI. The majority of referrals analyzed to date are low quality and have longer average wait times. Prolonged wait time is concerning given its documented impact on patient satisfaction, quality of life and administrative resources. Further analysis will focus on whether there are significant differences in patient outcomes between the qualities of referrals, and factors informing referral quality. Moving forward, higher levels of referrer education, as well as patient awareness and advocacy are needed. CIHRNova Scotia Health Authority Fund
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".