Does CEO Compensation Impact Hospital Patient Satisfaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient satisfaction is central to the mission of hospitals lacking a profit motive. One would therefore expect patient satisfaction to be a priority of nonprofit hospital CEOs and a strong relationship between CEOs compensation and hospital patient satisfaction. Based on data of 261 CEO-hospital-year observations in a sample of 103 nonprofit hospitals in Ontario, Canada, this study examines the relationship between CEO compensation and patient satisfaction. The objective of this study was to determine what impact hospital CEO compensation has on hospital patient satisfaction. The findings suggest that CEO compensation does not significantly influence hospital patient satisfaction. Both patient satisfaction and CEO compensation appear to be driven primarily by hospital size. Patient satisfaction decreases, while CEO compensations increases, with the number of acute care beds in a hospital. In addition, CEO compensation does not even appear to moderate the influence of hospital size on patient satisfaction. The findings seem to suggest that hospital directors seeking to improve patient satisfaction may be find their efforts frustrated if they focus them exclusively on the hospital CEO. The findings argue for further research examining how CEOs may, through leading and supporting those hospital clinicians and staff that interact more closely with patients, indirectly enhance 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".