Improving Knowledge Transfer by Using a Summative Patient Handout for Cystoscopy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite cystoscopy being among the most commonly performed urological procedures, there is a paucity of information on patient comprehension and retention of cystoscopy outcomes. A quality assessment performed at our center revealed low rates of patient understanding in our current care model. Therefore, we assessed patient comprehension of outpatient cystoscopy outcomes before and after the implementation of a formal written communication tool in the form of a summative patient handout to improve physician-patient communication. METHODS: Consecutive patients reporting for cystoscopy at a Canadian tertiary care center were assessed with postprocedure questionnaires before and after the implementation of a summative patient handout to facilitate the communication of results and followup plans. Comparisons were made with the Chi-squared test (p <0.05). RESULTS: A total of 650 questionnaires were analyzed (500 baseline and 150 postsummative patient handout). Of the respondents 448 (69%) were male and the mean age was 66 years old (total range 21 to 94 years) with 32% being under 60 years old. The proportion of patients who felt their results were discussed with them after implementation of the summative patient handout improved (94% vs 87%, p=0.02). Similarly, we improved concordance of patient reported and urologist reported cystoscopy results (75% vs 56%, p <0.001). Finally, we improved patient identification of their postcystoscopy followup plan (80% vs 51%, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a summative patient handout after local cystoscopy improved patient understanding of their procedural results and postcystoscopy followup plans.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it