ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2014
Exploration of an automated approach for receiving patient feedback after outpatient acute care visits.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening for Adverse Drug Events: a Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Trial
- Closing the Loop: Re-engineering the Assessment and Tracking of Symptoms in Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Current challenges in health information technology-related patient safety.Health informatics journal · 2020Article
- Using a Machine Learning System to Identify and Prevent Medication Prescribing Errors: A Clinical and Cost Analysis Evaluation.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2020Article
- Capsule Commentary on Bond et al., Real-time Feedback in Pay-for-Performance: Does More Information Lead to Improvement?Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Were my diagnosis and treatment correct? No news is not necessarily good news.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Article
- Article
- Case management directors: how to manage in a transition-focused world: part 1.Professional case managementArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo improve and learn from patient outcomes, particularly under new care models such as Accountable Care Organizations and Patient-Centered Medical Homes, requires establishing systems for follow-up and feedback.
objectiveTo provide post-visit feedback to physicians on patient outcomes following acute care visits.
designA three-phase cross-sectional study [live follow-up call three weeks after acute care visits (baseline), one week post-visit live call, and one week post-visit interactive voice response system (IVRS) call] with three patient cohorts was conducted. A family medicine clinic and an HIV clinic participated in all three phases, and a cerebral palsy clinic participated in the first two phases. Patients answered questions about symptom improvement, medication problems, and interactions with the healthcare system. PATIENTS: A total of 616 patients were included: 142 from Phase 1, 352 from Phase 2 and 122 from Phase 3. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes included: problem resolution, provider satisfaction with the system, and comparison of IVRS with live calls made by research staff. KEY
resultsDuring both live follow-up phases, at least 96% of patients who were reached completed the call compared to only 48% for the IVRS phase. At baseline, 98 of 113 (88%) patients reported improvement, as well as 167 of 196 (85%) in the live one-week follow-up. In the one-week IVRS phase, 25 of 39 (64%) reported improvement. In all phases, the majority of patients in both the improved and unimproved groups had not contacted their provider or another provider. While 63% of providers stated they wanted to receive patient feedback, they varied in the extent to which they used the feedback reports.
conclusionsMany patients who do not improve as expected do not take action to further address unresolved problems. Systematic follow-up/feedback mechanisms can potentially identify and connect such patients to needed care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.