MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388735951 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5074

Challenges and impacts of specialist care wait times identified by family physicians: Results from a cross-sectional survey

2023· article· en· W4388735951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Gard Marshall

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuralityCross-sectional studyDescriptive statisticsContext (archaeology)Family medicineMedicinePrimary carePopulationGeographyRural areaEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Context:</h3> Canadians experience longer wait times for specialist referrals compared to other countries, which is a top barrier to health care in Canada and has a negative impact on patient health and quality of life. However, little is known about the impacts on primary care practice. <h3>Objective:</h3> To understand primary care provider (PCP) experiences of long wait times for specialist referrals, and the impacts on PCPs. <h3>Study design and analysis:</h3> A cross-sectional, linked survey was conducted. Descriptive statistics were computed for demographics, and response frequencies were calculated. Open text fields in the survey were thematically analyzed. <h3>Setting:</h3> Surveys were conducted as part of a larger study in Nova Scotia, Canada between 2015 and 2019. Follow-up surveys about specialist wait times were distributed between May and September of 2018. <h3>Population studied:</h3> PCP (i.e., family physician and nurse practitioner) respondents from the larger survey who agreed to participate in this follow-up survey. <h3>Instrument:</h3> Cross-sectional survey tool. <h3>Outcome measures:</h3> How specialist wait times affected primary care practice. <h3>Results:</h3> Of the 566 PCPs invited to take part in the initial survey, 98 (17.3%) agreed to participate in the follow-up survey, and 87 (88.78%) responded to the open-text question. Respondents’ ages ranged from 32 to 72 years, with representation across gender, provider type, practice type, and rurality. Of the 87 respondents, there were 156 responses to the open text question. We identified nine themes: 1) pervasiveness of problematic specialist wait times; 2) managing beyond scope while waiting for specialist care; 3) consequences for patients due to specialist wait times; 4) managing patient expectations while waiting for specialist care; 5) scheduling repeat visits to meet needs of patients; 6) “lost time” to manage patients waiting for specialist access; 7) additional work strategizing ways to access specialist care for patients; 8) provider experience of burnout, frustration and stress due to delayed specialist care; and 9) recommendations for accessing specialist care. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Long wait times for specialist care in Nova Scotia have negative impacts on both patients and PCPs. Although PCPs took numerous steps to manage their patients in the interim, system-level changes are needed to reduce problematic wait times. These changes could support the health system across the Quintuple Aim.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207