557 Standardized Post-Endoscopy Report Card Improves Inpatient Post-Endoscopy Knowledge Translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is limited literature reviewing the utility and validity of a post-endoscopy report card in helping to better facilitate post-endoscopy recall and patient satisfaction. Augmenting verbal instructions with written ones has been shown to improve patient comprehension and compliance. The aim of this QI initiative was to improve recall of endoscopy results post-endoscopy via the use of a written endoscopy report card (WR) for patients, augmented to the current standard of care which involves a standard verbal report (VR). We evaluated the effect of providing a WR to patients before discharge, focusing on recall of endoscopic findings, physician recommendations, follow-up and overall satisfaction. Our goal was to increase patient recall of inpatient endoscopy results and follow up plans by 50% over a 6-month period at a tertiary hospital. METHODS: A prospective single-center trial. Between February and May 2019, 9 patients were enrolled in the standard of care arm, consisting of VR post-procedure. 21 patients underwent the intervention receiving the standard VR followed by receipt of a WR. Patients who met inclusion criteria were given the WR prior to discharge. This included patients age 3 18 years admitted to hospital for less than 2 weeks who underwent endoscopy in a non-ICU setting during admission. All patients received a standardized telephone survey containing questions about patient recall and satisfaction 5-10 days following discharge. Baseline characteristics of the two study groups were compared by using X 2 tests. Results were calculated using the Pearson Chi-Square Test and the Student T-test for patient satisfaction utilizing the Likert Scale. RESULTS: 81% of patients in intervention group (17/21) retained WR at the time of telephone survey. Receipt of a WR improved recall of findings ( P < 0.001), recall of medications ( P < 0.001), recall for clinic follow-up ( P = 0.006) and for recall for follow-up ( P = 0.008). Satisfaction was high for all patients but was significantly improved by the receipt and retention of report ( P < 0.001). Study limitations include the small sample size, and exclusion of patients who did not speak English. CONCLUSION: A post-endoscopy report card given to patients prior to discharge may improve recall of results, prescribed medications and overall satisfaction with procedures. This inexpensive and safe intervention should be routinely adopted into the standard of care.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".