Quality Assurance and the Service Domain in Cardiac and Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about the quality assurance methods used on cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Also, little is known as to what extent the service domain is evaluated and what methods are employed. Knowledge of what is being done in these regards may facilitate programs effectively and efficiently measuring these outcomes. Methods: A survey was mailed to 1/3 of the programs (approximately 400) in both cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation listed in the AACVPR Program Guide 2004. The survey included questions that would add to the knowledge of what is the extent of practice and methods. 12 components of quality assurance were listed and 14 components of patient satisfaction were assessed as to the frequency of use. It was pilot tested and revised. Results: The usable return rate was 48%. Program directors of both types of programs claimed daily formal assessment of most of the 12 areas listed for quality assurance. The three highest being assessment of adverse events, safety, and patient satisfaction. The three lowest use was in the area of efficiency, timeliness and continuity of care. The service domain was assessed as comparable to the other three: health, clinical and behavioral domains. Patient satisfaction was the most commonly assessed component of the service domain with more than 90% of both types of programs measuring program effectiveness, overall program quality and friendliness of the staff. Managers most commonly cited the acquisition of new equipment as the endpoint as the end results of patient satisfaction assessment. Conclusions: There was surprising similarity in results from programs in cardiac and pulmonary rehabilitation. Quality assurance is very frequently assessed in both. Concern for adverse events, safety, and patient satisfaction predominate.
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 | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".