Can patients reliably identify safe, high quality care?
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 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is a publicly reported tool that measures patient satisfaction. As both patients and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement rely on survey results as a metric of quality of care, we reviewed the current literature to determine if patient satisfaction correlates with quality, safety, or patient outcomes. We found varying associations between safety culture, process of care measure compliance, and patient outcomes with patient satisfaction on the HCAHPS survey. Some studies found inverse relationships between quality and safety metrics and patient satisfaction. The measure that most reliably correlated with high patient satisfaction was low readmission rate. Future studies using patient specific data are needed to better identify which factors most influence patient satisfaction and to determine if patient satisfaction is a marker of safer and better quality care. Furthermore, the HCAHPS survey should continue to undergo evaluations to assure it generates predictable results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it