A70 ACCURACY OF IBD PATIENT WAIT TIME ESTIMATES BY GASTROENTEROLOGISTS IN NOVA SCOTIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic disease with profound health and socioeconomic burden. Approximately 1 in 150 Canadians live with IBD: the highest prevalence rate in the world. Within Canada, Nova Scotia has the highest age-adjusted incidence and prevalence rates of IBD. High levels of need have translated into prolonged wait times: one of the main indicators of healthcare access. Extended wait time can negatively impact physical and mental health outcomes, as well as patient satisfaction of care. The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology has recommended GI wait times between 2 weeks and 2 months. However, the 2015 audit of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) Central Zone shows referred patients are waiting over 2 years to see a specialist. 1) To determine whether physicians can accurately estimate the length of time that patients have waited between the referral and intake specialist appointment; 2) To examine physician-related factors that may influence the accuracy of wait time estimation. Luminal gastroenterologists and IBD nurse practitioners practicing within the NHSA Central Zone were administered questionnaires designed to measure practice, practitioner, and systems factors which could influence accuracy of physician wait time estimate. Specialists were asked to estimate the wait time for each of their patients seen that day, based on the level of assigned triage urgency. A retrospective chart review was conducted to verify referral date and wait time duration. A total of six specialists were enrolled as of October 2016. Four (67%) participants were male, with a mean age of 51.60 years (SD=11.06 years). All participants reported working in an academic practice with an existing triage process. Five physicians reported using a central triage system for referrals, while one physician completed personal reviews of referrals. When physicians were asked to estimate the wait time for patients between the referral and seeing specialist, they estimated an average of 32 weeks. According to patient health records, patients waited an average of 49 weeks. When comparing physician-estimated wait times to referral dates a moderate positive association was found (rs=0.542, N=6, p <0.001). Initial results demonstrate a disconnect between perceived patient wait times by specialists and true wait times. These findings support previous research which has suggested, despite increased levels of healthcare expenditure, wait times for medically necessary treatment have not improved. Additional recruitment is ongoing and will allow further analysis of practitioner and system-related factors that effect physician estimates of patient wait times. 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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".