Observational studyJournal of glaucoma2019
Integrating Patient Education Into the Glaucoma Clinical Encounter: A Lean Analysis.
Observational study in Journal of glaucoma, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional Glaucoma: Improving the Patient-Provider Educational Exchange.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Evidence from the first Shared Medical Appointments (SMAs) randomised controlled trial in India: SMAs increase the satisfaction, knowledge, and medication compliance of patients with glaucoma.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Measuring impact of a quality improvement initiative on glaucoma clinic flow using an automated real-time locating system.BMC ophthalmology · 2022Article
- The Role of Value Stream Mapping in Healthcare Services: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Lifestyle Counseling for Medication Adherence in Glaucoma.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
- Designing and validating a low-cost real time locating system to continuously assess patient wait times.Journal of biomedical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe main purpose of this study was to use Lean analysis to identify how often and when wait times occur during a glaucoma visit to identify opportunities for additional patient engagement.
methodsThis prospective observational time-motion study measured process and wait times for 77 patient visits from 12 ophthalmologists at an academic glaucoma clinic over a 3-month period. Value stream maps visually diagramed the process of a clinical visit from the patient's perspective. Descriptive statistics were calculated for process times, wait times, and the frequency of 10+ minute wait times during each part of the visit. Key stakeholders participated in a root cause analysis to identify reasons for long wait times. The main outcome measure was average times (hours: minutes: seconds) for process times and wait times.
resultsTwenty-nine new visit (NV) patients and 48 return visit (RV) patients were included. Total time in clinic was 187.1±44.5 (mean±SD) minutes for NV patients and 102.0±44.7 minutes for RV patients. Wait time for NV patients was 63.7±33.4 minutes (33.1% of total appointment time) and for RV patients was 52.6±31.6 minutes (49.4% of the total appointment time). All NV patients and 87.5% of RV patients had at least one 10+ minute wait time during their clinic visit and the majority (75.9% NV, 60.4% RV) had >1.
conclusionsCurrently, sufficient wait time exists during the visit for key portions of glaucoma education such as teaching eye drop instillation.
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.