Customer Satisfaction in Anatomic Pathology
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Measurement of physicians' and patients' satisfaction with laboratory services has recently become a requirement of health care accreditation agencies in the United States. To our knowledge, this is the first customer satisfaction survey of anatomic pathology services to provide a standardized tool and benchmarks for subsequent measures of satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This Q-Probes study assessed physician satisfaction with anatomic pathology laboratory services and sought to determine characteristics that correlate with a high level of physician satisfaction. DESIGN: In January 2001, each laboratory used standardized survey forms to assess physician customer satisfaction with 10 specific elements of service in anatomic pathology and an overall satisfaction rating based on a scale of rankings from a 5 for excellent to a 1 for poor. Data from up to 50 surveys returned per laboratory were compiled and analyzed by the College of American Pathologists. A general questionnaire collected information about types of services offered and each laboratory's quality assurance initiatives to determine characteristics that correlate with a high level of physician satisfaction. SETTING: Hospital-based laboratories in the United States (95.8%), as well as others from Canada and Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-four voluntary subscriber laboratories in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes quality improvement program participated in this survey. Roughly 70% of respondents were from hospitals with occupied bedsizes of 300 or less, 65% were private nonprofit institutions, just over half were located in cities, one third were teaching hospitals, and 19% had pathology residency training programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall physician satisfaction with anatomic pathology and 10 selected aspects of the laboratory service (professional interaction, diagnostic accuracy, pathologist responsiveness to problems, pathologist accessibility for frozen section, tumor board presentations, courtesy of secretarial and technical staff, communication of relevant information, teaching conferences and courses, notification of significant abnormal results, and timeliness of reporting). RESULTS: The database of 3065 physician surveys was derived from 94 laboratories. An average of 32.6 surveys (median 30) was returned per institution, with a range of 5 to 50 surveys per institution. The mean response rate was 35.6% (median 32.5%). The median (50th percentile) laboratory had an overall median satisfaction score of 4.4. The lowest satisfaction scores that were obtained all related to poor communication, which included timeliness of reporting, communication of relevant information, and notification of significant abnormal results. Statistically significant associations of customer satisfaction with certain institutional characteristics and laboratory performance improvement activities were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of this satisfaction survey lies not in its requirement as an exercise for accrediting agencies but in understanding the needs of the customer (in this case the physician) to direct performance improvement in the delivery of quality anatomic pathology laboratory services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,013 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».