MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042599415 · doi:10.1108/09526860910975625

Customer focus in breast cancer screening services

2009· article· en· W2042599415 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Buttimer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsGrieg Seafood (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService delivery frameworkContext (archaeology)Breast cancer screeningBusinessMedicineService qualityProcess managementExcellenceService (business)Quality managementMarketingOperations managementBreast cancerMammographyEngineeringCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate how a generic value chain and customer focused system as demonstrated by the Scottish and Irish breast screening programmes can be used to provide a high quality health service. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Literature relevant to aligning the entire operating model--the companies' culture, business processes, management systems to serve one value discipline, i.e. customer intimacy, is reviewed and considered in the context of the NHS Scottish Breast Screening Programme in Edinburgh and BreastCheck--the National Breast Screening Programme in Ireland. FINDINGS: This paper demonstrates how an emphasis on customer focus and operational excellence, as used in other service industries, can help to provide a better health service. It uses the Scottish and Irish breast screening programmes as illustrative examples. The paper applies the key requirements in the delivery of a quality service including an understanding of the characteristics of a service industry, the management of discontinuities involved in its delivery and the environment in which it operates. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: System failure is commonly the cause of quality failure in the health system. Breast screening programmes are designed to prevent such a failure. This paper promotes and describes the use of the generic value chain by using the knowledge gained in delivering a mammography-screening programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.388 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality AssuranceSame topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningFrench-language works237,207