Patient satisfaction with nurse practitioner care in emergency departments in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To measure patient satisfaction with care delivered by nurse practitioners (NPs) in emergency departments (EDs) in Canada using a psychometrically valid survey. DATA SOURCES: All patients who received care from an NP in six participating EDs in Ontario province over a 1-week period were asked to complete a self-administered patient satisfaction survey designed specifically to assess satisfaction with NP care in EDs. CONCLUSIONS: One hundred and thirteen patients completed the survey. Principal components analysis of the survey revealed three factors or subscales: Attentiveness, Comprehensive care, and Role clarity. Scores on the three subscales indicated that patients were satisfied with Attentiveness (M = 3.72, SD = 0.38) and Comprehensive care (M = 3.52, SD = 0.49) and had a moderate understanding of Role clarity (M = 2.99, SD = 0.66). Participants with higher income levels reported higher levels of satisfaction with the attentiveness they received, whereas patients with previous experience with an NP reported higher levels of satisfaction with the comprehensive care they received. There was no appreciable increase in patient satisfaction with the NP based on age, gender, education, or health status. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: These findings indicate that attentiveness, comprehensive care, and role clarity are reflected by the NP in emergency healthcare settings as indicated by the patient's responses to the survey. This study supports that meeting expectations is a critical component of 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".