ArticleCureus2020
Survey on Impact of Operational Policies and Procedures on Patient Satisfaction at a Rural Free Healthcare Clinic in Florida.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Decreasing Patient Visit Length at a Student-Run Free Clinic via a Continuous Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims Free healthcare clinics provide highly necessary services for the populations they serve, particularly in rural, low socioeconomic areas. When assessing for quality of clinic performance, it is important to consider the background of the population it serves in addition to observations given by clinic volunteers. Contextualizing the healthcare challenges patients face will help the clinic assist them to a greater capacity. Here, we assess how different areas of clinic operations (service, safety, accessibility, interactions with volunteers, and wait time) impact patient satisfaction in the setting of a small, rural, free clinic. Methods Eligible participants were asked to fill out an anonymous, 21-question survey that assessed their experiences and perspectives on various aspects of the clinic. The study was single-blinded with clinic staff unaware of the nature of the study. Results Thirty-five patients responded to the survey. Overall, patients were extremely satisfied with the clinic with an average Likert score of 4.8/5; 14 of 15 categories scored a four or higher. Wait time scored lowest (3.6/5), with waits up to eight hours. Additionally, we found that transportation was not a major barrier to patients, with 80% arriving by personal transport. Conclusions The clinic provided valued and satisfactory services without coming across as discriminatory to the community. Areas of improvement include wait times, role clarification, and better integration of medical students. Additional studies to further understand the community will facilitate tailoring healthcare to a rural underserved population in the Southeastern United States.
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.