A58 PATIENT SATISFACTION WITH ENDOSCOPY UNITS: THE EDMONTON EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endoscopy services in the Edmonton Zone (EZ) are provided by 8 endoscopy units. Implementation of the Global Rating Scale (GRS) as a measure of endoscopy unit quality in the EZ was previously based at individual sites, with no coordination across the EZ. This led to poor uptake of the GRS. In September 2015, Alberta Health Services leadership partnered with Gastroenterology to provide quality improvement (QI) resources across the EZ to support the GRS. Part of this project involved introducing a patient satisfaction survey to be utilized by all EZ endoscopy units to inform the ongoing QI process. The project aim was to develop and implement a uniform process to assess patient satisfaction with endoscopy units across the EZ. A patient satisfaction survey was developed using multiple stakeholders from the five principal endoscopy units within AHS and Covenant Health, including departments of Integrated Quality Management, Patient Engagement and Primary Data Support, as well as EZ Gastroenterologists. Survey distribution began April 1, 2016. At each site, two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly selected to receive the survey daily. The survey was discussed with patients pre-procedure and distributed at discharge by nursing staff. After six months, data was collated and reported to the EZ GRS/Quality Committee and individual endoscopy units. 595 surveys were distributed from April 1, 2016 to Sept 30, 2016. Overall response rate was 220 (37%), which varied by site (range 30–47%). 99.5% of respondents felt they had been treated with courtesy and respect. Respondents reported confidence/trust in endoscopy staff (100% for endoscopist, 99.6% for nurse), and satisfaction with explanations received (99.0% for endoscopist, 99.5% for nurse). 92.7% of patients were comfortable/very comfortable during the colonoscopy. Higher than expected numbers of respondents were not made aware by endoscopy unit staff that they were free to withdraw consent at any time (39.3% for endoscopist, 34.3% for nurse). 39% of patients reported difficulty with bowel preparation; of these 31.7% did not have a number to call with questions. 9.2% of patients reported requiring a translator, but only 33% of these were offered one. This zone-based patient satisfaction survey has enabled the EZ to identify ways to improve the patient endoscopy experience, such as clarifying our pre-procedure consent information, and improving pre-procedure support and translation. Bowel preparation information will require more work. GRS items across the EZ improved due to implementation of the patient survey. The provision of centralized resources and personnel by AHS was integral to the success of this process, and will be required to entrench QI as part of usual business for EZ endoscopy units. None
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".