Looking Back, Moving Forward: An Analysis of Complaints Submitted to a Canadian Tertiary Care Radiology Department and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We present an analysis of various types and strata of complaints received in a geographically isolated tertiary care center over a 2.5-year period. METHODS: Research ethics board approval was obtained. The institution described is a closed system with formalized procedures for submitting complaints. All complaints submitted between November 2010 and March 2013 were collected retrospectively. The following data were extracted: type of complainant, nature of the complaint, site or modality of concern, dates in question, and the response. The data were analysed in multiple subgroups and compared with patient and study volume data. RESULTS: The frequency of complaints equalled 0.01% (100/1,050,000). The largest group of those who submitted complaints were patients (69% [69/100]), followed by referring physicians (16%). Examination scheduling and interpersonal conflicts were equally of greatest frequency of concern (21% [21/100]), followed by issues with study reporting (16%). The average time interval between complaint submission and formal address was 15 days. CONCLUSIONS: We present a low frequency of complaints, with the majority of these complaints submitted by patients; scheduling and personal interactions were most often involved. Effective communication, both with patients and referring physicians, was identified as a particular focus for improving satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".