Recommendations from parents, administrative staff and clinicians to improve paediatric ambulatory appointment scheduling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stakeholders can provide valuable input to improve scheduling paediatric ambulatory clinic appointments, a complex process that requires effective planning and communication between parents, administrative staff and clinicians. The purpose of our study was to characterize recommendations from parents, administrative staff and clinicians to improve paediatric ambulatory appointment scheduling. METHODS: Conducted between February 2018 and January 2019, this qualitative study was guided by qualitative description. Data collection was completed using focus groups with three stakeholder groups: parents, administrative staff and clinicians. Participants provided recommendations to optimize paediatric ambulatory appointment scheduling at the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Focus group data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using manifest inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-six participants (mean age: 42.7; 87% female) participated in 12 focus groups. Parents (n = 11), administrative staff (n = 22) and clinicians (n = 13) made recommendations that were organized into two categories: appointment triaging and arranging. Triaging recommendations were related to appointment availability (e.g. providing alternatives to cancelling clinics with short notice) and waitlist management (e.g. developing clear and consistent policies regarding information flow and communication between clinics and administrative staff). Appointment arranging recommendations referred to booking (e.g. directly involving parents in the booking process), reminders (e.g. using text message reminders) and attendance (e.g. providing parents with a single point of contact who can provide the correct information about late and cancellation policies). Recommendations were similar across stakeholder groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed congruent recommendations across stakeholder groups to address challenges with scheduling ambulatory appointments, many of which have the potential to be modified. Experimental research and quality improvement initiatives are needed to determine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of stakeholder recommendations to improve triaging and scheduling paediatric ambulatory appointments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".