A study of provider-caregiver communication in paediatric ambulatory care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Provider-caregiver communication is a key ingredient in quality health care and patient safety, and effective communication has been shown to affect compliance and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To identify and compare communication issues among three paediatric outpatient clinics. METHODS: In this prospective, qualitative study, a questionnaire was used to survey physicians, nurse practitioners and caregivers at three different infectious diseases clinics. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant preponderance of families in the tuberculosis clinic for whom English was not the mother tongue and who were not fluent in English. Patients in the HIV clinic were less likely to be at their first appointment than were patients attending the other clinics. Patients in the general clinic were less likely to have been seen by the same physician on the previous visit. Parents from all three clinics were satisfied with the care they received, with communication and with rapport with their child. There was a trend toward parents in the tuberculosis clinic being happier with their clinic visit and less likely to complain about the wait time. CONCLUSIONS: Language proficiency and lack of continuity of provider care were identified as potential risks for patient safety in the ambulatory setting. Further studies are necessary to identify language and cultural issues that may affect patient care in a tertiary paediatric hospital servicing a multiethnic population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".