Evaluation of a Clinical Genetics Service – A Quality Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper-based surveys are an effective means of evaluating the quality of a clinical service. As part of ongoing quality improvement initiatives within our Genetics Program, new patients were invited to participate in a paper-based survey. Issues related to the quality of counseling based on educational/informational aspects (e.g. whether testing was explained fully, testing options, the meaning of normal/abnormal testing), competency, respect and nondirectiveness of counseling in addition to clinical environment/setting were evaluated. Data related to demographics, discipline seen within the program and whether the patient was seen by a physician or genetic counselor were also captured. Five hundred questionnaires were distributed. One hundred and forty-seven questionnaires were returned, with a response rate of 29.4 %. The majority of patients seen were prenatal (pregnant) patients and comprised a heterogeneous group including those seen for advanced maternal age and abnormal maternal serum screening. Overall, 98.6 % of respondents felt their appointment in genetics was a positive experience. Issues related to confidentiality, pros and cons of testing, meaning of an abnormal test result and time allotted for decision making were significantly different in some disciplines between genetic counselor and geneticist. However, when controlling for referral indication, these differences lost significance with the exception of issues relating to confidentiality and perceived time allotted to organize thoughts and questions. This survey provided valuable information to allow for improvement in the quality of the provision of service.
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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".