Effect of the provision of estimated waiting time on patient satisfaction with the Emergency Department: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is a quality measure that provides important details on the medical care provided. This study aimed to assess the effect of displaying "estimated waiting time" on patient's satisfaction with emergency care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 190 patients from the Emergency Department (ED) of King Fahad Hofuf Hospital (KFHH) who were aged 18 and above and were triaged as 3 and above on the Canadian triage and acuity scale (CTAS). One hundred eighteen patients were selected as the entrance group, and 72 selected as the inside group that were further divided into intervention group (35) and control group (37); Intervention group received estimated waiting time. Two questionnaires were administered, first at the triage entrance and the second at the ED after being seen by the physician. Fischer's exact test was applied to test for association between categorical variables, and Mann- Whitney U test was used to compare satisfaction scores between the groups. RESULTS: For the 118 patients at the triage entrance, 50% were aged 18-39 years, 62% were females, and 61% were triaged as category 3. One-third patients were willing to wait for 0-1 hour, and 28% described their symptoms as severe. Only 29.7% patients said they would wait until seen by doctor. No statistically significant difference in the level of satisfaction between patients who were provided with the estimated waiting time and those who were not (P=0.962). CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant variations between the two groups' preferences regarding patients' awareness of their predicted waiting times. The results indicated that managing patients' perceptions and expectations of waiting times effectively is inconsequential for the improvement of patient experience.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".