Patient Satisfaction With the Services of a Pediatric Digestive Tract Endoscopy Unit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global satisfaction is the result of satisfaction with sequential connected caregiving activities administered according to current quality standards. We assessed patients' satisfaction with diagnostic digestive endoscopy via a questionnaire, asking for the state of information, organizational issues, anxiety, pain and discomfort, and medication side effects. A total of 157 patients completed the questionnaire before and after the procedure, and the endoscopy nurse filled it during the procedure. Despite a high rate of global satisfaction, the questionnaire disclosed several items to improve: Patient information on medication intake before digestive endoscopy was insufficient. Patients would have appreciated more detailed description on the type of sedation during the procedure. While the amnesic effect of our sedation was good, the analgesic effect was less optimal. These results suggest that the questionnaire is a valid tool to assess both patients' satisfaction and quality of care in a pediatric endoscopy unit and that patient satisfaction does not necessarily reflect quality of care.
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.
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 it