Impact of a Checklist on Clinic Flow and Patient Visit Times at a Student-Run Free Clinic

A. Scott, Dolly Patel, Alexa Hughes, Alexis Reedy-Cooper
{"title":"Impact of a Checklist on Clinic Flow and Patient Visit Times at a Student-Run Free Clinic","authors":"A. Scott, Dolly Patel, Alexa Hughes, Alexis Reedy-Cooper","doi":"10.59586/jsrc.v7i1.213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While student-run free clinics are a valuable resource to the community, there are limitations leading to challenges with clinic flow. Previous research has identified checklists as a useful intervention in medicine. This project sought to evaluate the efficacy of a checklist on student volunteer accuracy and adherence to clinic flow, and patient visit times. \nMethods: From June 2019 to February 2020, volunteers at select clinics received a checklist listing important steps of a patient encounter. The authors sent surveys to volunteers following all clinics and recorded patient visit times. The outcomes measured were: volunteer accuracy (number of steps completed); volunteer adherence (order of steps); perceived helpfulness of the checklist; and patient visit times. The first three outcomes were assessed via self-reported survey data and the last outcome was assessed via collection of time data. Fisher’s exact tests to assess statistical significance (p<0.05). \nResults: Thirty-eight student volunteers completed surveys, for a response rate of 67.9%. Eighteen (47%) of those who completed surveys were part of the experimental group (received checklist), while the remaining 53% were part of the control group (did not receive checklist). Nine (50%) of 18 volunteers with a checklist spoke to patient navigation and/or lifestyle educators before presenting to an attending, compared to 1 (5%) of 20 volunteers without checklist (p=0.0025). Of the 18 volunteers who received a checklist, 16 (89%) found the checklist helpful.  There was no significant difference between mean visit time pre-checklist (74 minutes, SD= 29.6) and post-checklist (79 minutes; SD=28.3; p=0.46, n=134). \nConclusion: The checklist improved clinic flow by increasing volunteer accuracy and adherence. The checklist was also perceived to be helpful, and did not increase patient visit times.","PeriodicalId":73958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of student-run clinics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of student-run clinics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59586/jsrc.v7i1.213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While student-run free clinics are a valuable resource to the community, there are limitations leading to challenges with clinic flow. Previous research has identified checklists as a useful intervention in medicine. This project sought to evaluate the efficacy of a checklist on student volunteer accuracy and adherence to clinic flow, and patient visit times. Methods: From June 2019 to February 2020, volunteers at select clinics received a checklist listing important steps of a patient encounter. The authors sent surveys to volunteers following all clinics and recorded patient visit times. The outcomes measured were: volunteer accuracy (number of steps completed); volunteer adherence (order of steps); perceived helpfulness of the checklist; and patient visit times. The first three outcomes were assessed via self-reported survey data and the last outcome was assessed via collection of time data. Fisher’s exact tests to assess statistical significance (p<0.05). Results: Thirty-eight student volunteers completed surveys, for a response rate of 67.9%. Eighteen (47%) of those who completed surveys were part of the experimental group (received checklist), while the remaining 53% were part of the control group (did not receive checklist). Nine (50%) of 18 volunteers with a checklist spoke to patient navigation and/or lifestyle educators before presenting to an attending, compared to 1 (5%) of 20 volunteers without checklist (p=0.0025). Of the 18 volunteers who received a checklist, 16 (89%) found the checklist helpful.  There was no significant difference between mean visit time pre-checklist (74 minutes, SD= 29.6) and post-checklist (79 minutes; SD=28.3; p=0.46, n=134). Conclusion: The checklist improved clinic flow by increasing volunteer accuracy and adherence. The checklist was also perceived to be helpful, and did not increase patient visit times.
学生免费诊所检查表对诊所流量和患者就诊时间的影响
背景:虽然学生开办的免费诊所是社区的宝贵资源,但也存在局限性,导致诊所流动面临挑战。先前的研究已经确定检查清单是一种有用的医学干预手段。本项目旨在评估核对表对学生志愿者的准确性和对诊所流程的依从性以及患者就诊时间的有效性。方法:从2019年6月到2020年2月,在选定的诊所,志愿者收到了一份清单,其中列出了与患者会面的重要步骤。作者向志愿者发送调查问卷,跟踪所有诊所并记录患者就诊时间。测量的结果是:志愿者的准确性(完成的步数);志愿者依从性(步骤顺序);感知清单的有用性;病人就诊次数。前三个结果通过自我报告的调查数据进行评估,最后一个结果通过收集时间数据进行评估。fisher®精确检验评估统计学意义(p<0.05)。结果:38名学生志愿者完成了调查,回复率为67.9%。完成调查的18人(47%)为实验组(收到清单),其余53%为对照组(未收到清单)。18名有检查表的志愿者中有9名(50%)在就诊前与患者导航和/或生活方式教育者进行了交谈,而20名没有检查表的志愿者中只有1名(5%)进行了交谈(p=0.0025)。在收到清单的18名志愿者中,16名(89%)认为清单很有帮助。检查前平均就诊时间(74分钟,SD= 29.6)与检查后平均就诊时间(79分钟;SD = 28.3;p = 0.46, n = 134)。结论:检查表通过提高志愿者的准确性和依从性改善了临床流程。检查表也被认为是有帮助的,并没有增加病人的就诊次数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信