Parental satisfaction with follow‐up services for children with major anatomical congenital anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 1999 a multidisciplinary follow-up programme for parents and children with major anatomical congenital anomalies is in place in our hospital, run by a dedicated team. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the services of this team from a parental perspective. METHODS: Parents completed a questionnaire including open and closed questions about satisfaction with the various professional disciplines involved in the follow-up, statements on usefulness of the follow-up services and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-nine surveys were sent out, of which 71% were returned. Non-responding parents included significantly more parents of non-Dutch origin (P= 0.038) and parents who never responded to invitations for follow-up examinations (P < 0.001). Parental satisfaction differed for the various disciplines. Eighty per cent of the parents were (very) satisfied with the social worker, compared with 92% with nurses. More than half of the parents agreed that the follow-up services give peace of mind. Almost a quarter of parents, however, considered the follow-up services as redundant. The children of these parents had significantly shorter intensive care unit stay (P= 0.02), were older at the time of the questionnaire (P= 0.04), of higher socio-economic status (P= 0.001) and less likely to be of non-Dutch origin (P= 0.008). Sixty-one per cent of the parents had contacted the 24-h helpline. Ninety per cent of the parents were satisfied with the intensive care unit, almost 80% with the general ward. CONCLUSION: Overall, parents were satisfied with the services of the follow-up team. Some parents, however, saw room for improvement related to better communication, recognizability of the team and better planning and organization.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".