ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2015
Impact of Pre-Procedure Interventions on No-Show Rate in Pediatric Endoscopy.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors for Operating Room No-Show in an Academic Otolaryngology Practice.The Laryngoscope · 2022Article
- No-show after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatment in endourology clinic: Can we build a typical patient profile?International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2022Article
- Pediatric endoscopy across multiple clinical settings: Efficiency and adverse events.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Predicting no-shows in paediatric orthopaedic clinics.BMJ health & care informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pediatric endoscopy has evolved into an indispensable tool in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal diseases in children. However, there is limited literature focusing on quality improvement initiatives in pediatric endoscopy. The primary goal of this project was to reduce the no-show rate in the pediatric endoscopy unit. Also, we aimed to improve patient and family satisfaction with the procedure by identifying opportunities for improvement. A checklist was designed based on the potential causes of no-show. The endoscopy nurse coordinator reviewed the checklist when scheduling the procedure to identify patients at high risk for non-compliance. Once a risk factor was identified, appropriate actions were taken. She also made a pre-procedure phone call as a reminder and to address any of these risks for non-compliance if present. A patient satisfaction survey was used to identify potential areas for improvement. The no-show rate decreased from an average of 7% in the pre-intervention phase to 2% in the post-intervention phase (p = 0.009). 91% of the patients/family recorded an overall satisfaction of 4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5 5 being best). Quality improvement strategies decreased the no-show rate in the pediatric endoscopy unit. A patient satisfaction survey helped in identifying areas for improvement.
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.