Level of satisfaction in patients/attendants admitted with traumatic brain injury at an advanced ER/Casualty in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of the present study was to develop an instrument that could be helpful to measure the level of satisfaction with hospital services in cases of traumatic brain injuries. Methods: The present pilot study was a prospective analysis of traumatic brain injury patients. The study was approved by the institutional ethical committee. The data was collected regarding demographics, clinical presentation, management offered, complications and survival. Patient satisfaction was measured by a validated questionnaire with six domains: information, human care, comfort, visiting, intimacy, and cleanliness. The data was collected in self-administered questionnaire to measure attendants’ desires and expectations for a broad spectrum of frequently used services in a hospital. Attendants indicated their level of satisfaction by selecting responses ranging from poor=1, fair=2, good=3, very good=4 and excellent=5. Each domain was scored from excellent to poor, with higher scores indicating higher levels of patient satisfaction. Results: During the pilot study period, data for a total 86 patients was collected. The mean age was 36.81 years (Age range 6-73 years, median-35.5 years). Mean hospital stay was 9.25 days (range 2-35 days, median 6.9 days). In present study almost all the patients were brought by close relatives. Most of the patients belonged to the low socio-economic status (coolie 33/86, farmers’ 17/86). Sixty six patients made good recovery, 14 had moderate disability and 6 patients had severe disability at the time of discharge. The overall satisfaction level was classified into excellent, very good, good, average and poor. Details of the level of satisfaction and most of the time it was excellent to very good and good level of satisfaction. There were no averages or poor response. Conclusions: We believe the scores obtained from the questionnaire from present pilot study can serve as baseline against which to compare the results from future surveys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".