Client Satisfaction Survey of a Wheelchair Seating Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractAfter a pilot phase, Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific's Wheelchair Seating Clinic officially opened in August 1998 to provide services for current and prospective wheelchair users. A satisfaction survey was developed and implemented to explore client satisfaction and identify program areas needing improvement. In April 1999, the survey was mailed to all 41 clients who had completed an assessment and received their equipment during the program's first 9 months. With a 63% response rate, results suggested that clients were very satisfied with the clinic's atmosphere, the therapist, and the program's ability to identify clients' individual goals and needs and to justify insurance coverage for needed equipment. However, clients wanted more information regarding vendor and cost options and better-timed follow-up sessions with the therapist once equipment arrived. The survey tool worked well and results helped to identify areas of success and areas in need of improvement in the clinic.Key Words: Wheelchair seating clinicpatient satisfactionquality improvementrehabilitation Additional informationNotes on contributorsKathy M. SuzukiJennifer R. Johnson was a graduate student in the School of Occupational Therapy, Texas Woman's University, Houston, TX at the time of this study. She is currently employed as an Occupational Therapist at Touro Infirmary in New Orleans, LADebra Stewart is Lecturer, School of Rehabilitation Science, McMaster University and staff therapist at Erinoak Centre, Missis-sauga, Ontario. She is currently completing a MSc (Design, Measurement and Evaluation) at McMaster University.Ronald L. Mace (deceased, June 29, 1998) was also affiliated with The Center for Universal Design, School of Design, North Carolina University.Lois Rosage and Geraldine Shaw are Occupational Therapist Consultants who provide evaluations for the housing programs at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".