Patient Satisfaction as an Indicator of Quality Care in Independent Health Facilities: Developing and Assessing a Tool to Enhance Public Accountability
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
The objective of this research was to examine the performance of a brief patient survey about quality of care received in community-based diagnostic and therapeutic facilities. The survey was administered to patients in 44 facilities that were also scheduled for a formal external assessment. The response rate was 53%. Patients generally rated their care positively; 18.5% of patients rated at least 1 item as fair or poor. The amount of information received about risks and complications was rated least favorably; concern and caring shown by staff was rated most favorably. The 10 items which patients rated regarding aspects of quality formed an internally consistent scale (alpha = .93). Patients' ratings were not useful predictors of assessor ratings. Although patients' ratings cannot substitute for expert on-site assessments, they are an important part of a quality management program. The patient survey provides additional, complementary information about components of quality care that are important to them.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it