Improving sexual health services in the city: can the NHS learn from clients and the service industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Genitourinary service providers are struggling to meet patient demand and have introduced changes in access structure to cope. In this study, we explored the perspectives of clients and providers upon the different models of access introduced and whether these maintained service quality using the SERQUAL model. METHODS: Primary data were collected in May 2005 at two genitourinary medicine clinics, two Accident and Emergency Departments and from members of a university 'gay' society all of which were located in London. Forty-four high-risk clients and 11 health service providers underwent semi-structured face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Both the walk-in and appointment-based access systems were appreciated by clients. Clients said that the most important issue was that they were not turned away when they presented. Health-care providers had a variety of opinions about the two systems as they had different impacts on morale, training and service provision. CONCLUSIONS: Service quality can be maintained by using both walk-in and appointment-based systems. This is because our data, in line with Parasuraman's model of service quality, showed that 'access' is but one determinant of quality. Having different modes of access facilitates patient choice, which is paramount in a modern health-care system. However, to provide a good service it is important to maintain a motivated staff, who can be affected by their working environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".