Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38163113›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Process improvement of a paediatric feeding clinic.

Ann Dadich, Premaratne Samaranayake, Hilal Hurriyet, Chris Elliot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ann DadichSchool of Business, Western Sydney University, Australia.
Premaratne SamaranayakeSchool of Business, Western Sydney University, Australia.
Hilal HurriyetSchool of Business, Western Sydney University, Australia.
Chris ElliotDepartment of Paediatrics, St George Hospital, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify opportunities to improve processes within a paediatric feeding clinic to enhance timely patient access to healthcare through effective and efficient resource use. Design/methodology/approach: The study involved three interrelated methods. First, de-identified feeding clinic data, collected over seven years, were analysed to understand patient appointments. Second, clinician workshops and the swim lane method were used to map feeding clinic processes. Third, root cause analysis was conducted to identify bottlenecks and identify improvement opportunities. Findings: The results revealed three, poorly connected sub-processes within the feeding clinic - namely: the patient triaging and appointment scheduling or allocation process; the clinic reporting process; and the cancellation and rescheduling process. These sub-processes were poorly connected because of inadequate resources, few standardised processes, and limited coordination between the different processes. Consequently, patient appointments were typically delayed, and patient reports were not always completed in a timely manner. Processes within the paediatric feeding clinic could therefore be improved by using digital tools, patient portals and telehealth, online interventions, an automated appointment confirmation system, and/or an automated transcription of each appointment. Originality/value: This is the first published study to apply business process management to a paediatric feeding clinic. By using three methods to clarify opportunities to improve clinic processes, it highlights the potential value of health information technology in this context. This evidence will enable health service managers to ensure that children with feeding difficulties have timely access to appropriate care.

Indexed as

Feeding clinicsPaediatric healthcareProcess improvement

Identifiers

PMID38163113
PMCPMC10756986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.