MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971986973 · doi:10.5430/jha.v4n3p35

Influence of AIDET in the improving quality metrics in a small community hospital - before and after analysis

2015· article· en· W1971986973 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Raúl Montoya Zamora, Mitun Patel, Bryan Doherty, Adam Alperstein, Peter DeVito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)AccreditationHealth careInterpersonal communicationQuality (philosophy)MedicinePatient satisfactionTest (biology)Healthcare deliveryNursingFamily medicineHealthcare systemMedical educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As the US healthcare system is becoming a more outcomes based system, increasing emphasis is being paidto improving all aspects of health care delivery. Interpersonal and communication skills, an ACGME (Accreditation Councilfor Graduate Medical Education) core competency in resident education, play a fundamental role in this effort. This aspectof healthcare delivery is also part of Medicare hospital reviews. In our hospital, the administration has introduced AIDET (Acknowledge, Introduce, Duration, Explanation, and Thank you) as a communication strategy which promises to improveexchange of information between healthcare professionals as well as with patients and their families. Objective: Determine if theAIDET strategy used in our facility has improved patient satisfaction.Methods: This study was done using pretest post test experimental design. Patient satisfaction was measured using scores fromthe HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) quarterly reports from the 3rd quarter of2010 to the 2nd quarter of 2013. Pre and post AIDET implementation results were statistically analysed using a paired t-test.Results are reported as a p-value with < .05 being statistically significant.Results: There were a total of 1,811 patient responses sampled from the 3rd quarter of 2010 to the 2nd quarter of 2013. Asignificant change < .05 was seen in the way Nurses Explain, Doctors Explain and Nurses listen in the pre and post AIDETimplementation comparison. The change in percentage of patients that believed doctors and nurses explained things to them in away they could understand showed a p-value of .02. The trend in percentage of patients that perceived that nurses always listenedcarefully to them showed a p-value of .02 as well. On the other hand, the data evaluating how doctors listened carefully to themdid not reach statistical significance with a p-value of .08. The remaining categories of “Told About Medication” and “Help afterDischarge” were both found not have changed significantly either.Conclusions: The implementation of AIDET education may have had a significant impact on provider-patient communication inour facility, especially in the patient’s perception of explaining things in a way they could understand. On the other hand, in theresponses to the question of whether or not doctors listened carefully to them, there was some improvement over time, howeverthis did not achieve statistical significance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207