Health care quality from the perspective of health care providers and patients during and shortly after acute care restructuring in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To monitor changes in providers' perceptions of health care quality and the importance of health reform, and in patients' satisfaction with services during and two years after restructuring, comparing the region of the province that was restructured (St John's) with those regions in which hospitals were not aggregated. METHODS: The Employee Attitude Survey questionnaire was sent to acute care providers (n = 5353) to assess personal characteristics and perceptions of the impact of reform on workplace conditions, work-related attitudes and turnover intentions. The response rate for 2000 and 2002 was 42% (n = 1222 and 1034, respectively). Only respondents in both surveys (n = 589) were used in the analysis because study results were the same for both the repeat sample and total samples. A Patient Satisfaction Survey questionnaire was administered to patients discharged from acute care facilities in 2000 (n = 1741) and 2002 (n = 704). Response rates were 82.5% and 90.2%, respectively. RESULTS: Most providers felt, at both time periods, that restructuring of the health care system was a positive step, but felt that health care quality was low. In the St John's region, perceptions of quality and standards of care improved over time. Patients were extremely satisfied with the admission process and hospital stay at both time periods in St John's. However, satisfaction declined in 2002 in regions outside St John's. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregation of acute care hospitals is possible without adverse effects on providers' perceptions of health care quality or on patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".