Patients’ Access to Telephone and E-mail Services Provided by IBD Nurses in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) can impact the quality of life and increase health care resource utilization. Nurses play an integral role in ensuring ease of access to care between scheduled office visits. Aims This study aimed to capture the utilization of Canadian IBD nursing telephone and e-mail services. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study with an eight-item online survey was completed by nurses to assess the use of nurse-led telephone and e-mail services for IBD patients. Results Twenty-one IBD nurses participated, and 572 patients nurse encounters were reported. Patients with ulcerative (UC) contacted with disease flare when compared to Crohn’s disease (CD) (40% versus 24%, P < 0.001). Nursing services were primarily utilized for queries regarding medication (39.3%), disease exacerbations (29.6%), investigations (26%), and scheduling appointments (17.6%). Patients with CD had more telephone conversations (62.7%) and required more follow-up telephone calls (72.2%) compared to patients with UC (33%) and 25%, respectively. Nurse-managed interventions were provided independently for 61.4% of encounters, while 19% required a scheduled appointment in the IBD clinic. In the absence of telephone or e-mail assistance, older patients were more likely to call their family doctor (r = 0.18, P < 0.001), visit the emergency room (r = 0.18, P < 0.001), visit an urgent access clinic (r = 0.22, P < 0.001), or visit a walk-in clinic (r = 0.29, P < 0.001) than younger patients. Conclusions Nurse-managed IBD advice lines are proactive services that can address most patient disease-related concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".