Pediatric ambulatory appointment scheduling: a qualitative study of stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Scheduling ambulatory clinic appointments includes a complex set of factors and diverse stakeholders. Families, administrative staff and clinicians may have varied experiences with scheduling clinic appointments. The objective of our study was to understand stakeholders' perceptions and experiences with scheduling pediatric ambulatory clinic appointments. DESIGN: Guided methodologically by qualitative description, focus groups were conducted separately with three stakeholder groups and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. SETTING: This qualitative study was completed at a children's hospital in Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Parents, administrative professionals and clinicians who used the pediatric ambulatory scheduling system regularly to elicit perceptions and experiences about issues and areas where improvements could be made. RESULTS: Across 12 focus groups, parents (n = 11), administrative professionals (n = 23) and clinicians (n = 13) discussed areas for improvement related to the pediatric ambulatory scheduling system. The perceived areas for improvement were grouped into three categories regarding levels of influence: (i) 'intrapersonal': knowledge, skills and behaviors (e.g. insufficient training of administrative professionals); (ii) 'interpersonal': communication processes (e.g. parents not receiving confirmation letters); and (iii) 'institutional': structures and processes (e.g. varying practices and processes across clinics). CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders provided a rich description of the interrelated factors and processes that influenced the scheduling of pediatric ambulatory clinic appointments. Multilevel, experimental interventions are needed to test whether the findings described herein can enhance the structure and function of pediatric ambulatory appointment scheduling.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".