A. Scott, Dolly Patel, Alexa Hughes, Alexis Reedy-Cooper
{"title":"Impact of a Checklist on Clinic Flow and Patient Visit Times at a Student-Run Free Clinic","authors":"A. Scott, Dolly Patel, Alexa Hughes, Alexis Reedy-Cooper","doi":"10.59586/jsrc.v7i1.213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While student-run free clinics are a valuable resource to the community, there are limitations leading to challenges with clinic flow. Previous research has identified checklists as a useful intervention in medicine. This project sought to evaluate the efficacy of a checklist on student volunteer accuracy and adherence to clinic flow, and patient visit times. \nMethods: From June 2019 to February 2020, volunteers at select clinics received a checklist listing important steps of a patient encounter. The authors sent surveys to volunteers following all clinics and recorded patient visit times. The outcomes measured were: volunteer accuracy (number of steps completed); volunteer adherence (order of steps); perceived helpfulness of the checklist; and patient visit times. The first three outcomes were assessed via self-reported survey data and the last outcome was assessed via collection of time data. Fisher’s exact tests to assess statistical significance (p<0.05). \nResults: Thirty-eight student volunteers completed surveys, for a response rate of 67.9%. Eighteen (47%) of those who completed surveys were part of the experimental group (received checklist), while the remaining 53% were part of the control group (did not receive checklist). Nine (50%) of 18 volunteers with a checklist spoke to patient navigation and/or lifestyle educators before presenting to an attending, compared to 1 (5%) of 20 volunteers without checklist (p=0.0025). Of the 18 volunteers who received a checklist, 16 (89%) found the checklist helpful. There was no significant difference between mean visit time pre-checklist (74 minutes, SD= 29.6) and post-checklist (79 minutes; SD=28.3; p=0.46, n=134). \nConclusion: The checklist improved clinic flow by increasing volunteer accuracy and adherence. The checklist was also perceived to be helpful, and did not increase patient visit times.","PeriodicalId":73958,"journal":{"name":"Journal of student-run clinics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of student-run clinics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59586/jsrc.v7i1.213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: While student-run free clinics are a valuable resource to the community, there are limitations leading to challenges with clinic flow. Previous research has identified checklists as a useful intervention in medicine. This project sought to evaluate the efficacy of a checklist on student volunteer accuracy and adherence to clinic flow, and patient visit times.
Methods: From June 2019 to February 2020, volunteers at select clinics received a checklist listing important steps of a patient encounter. The authors sent surveys to volunteers following all clinics and recorded patient visit times. The outcomes measured were: volunteer accuracy (number of steps completed); volunteer adherence (order of steps); perceived helpfulness of the checklist; and patient visit times. The first three outcomes were assessed via self-reported survey data and the last outcome was assessed via collection of time data. Fisher’s exact tests to assess statistical significance (p<0.05).
Results: Thirty-eight student volunteers completed surveys, for a response rate of 67.9%. Eighteen (47%) of those who completed surveys were part of the experimental group (received checklist), while the remaining 53% were part of the control group (did not receive checklist). Nine (50%) of 18 volunteers with a checklist spoke to patient navigation and/or lifestyle educators before presenting to an attending, compared to 1 (5%) of 20 volunteers without checklist (p=0.0025). Of the 18 volunteers who received a checklist, 16 (89%) found the checklist helpful. There was no significant difference between mean visit time pre-checklist (74 minutes, SD= 29.6) and post-checklist (79 minutes; SD=28.3; p=0.46, n=134).
Conclusion: The checklist improved clinic flow by increasing volunteer accuracy and adherence. The checklist was also perceived to be helpful, and did not increase patient visit times.