Patient Satisfaction With Care for Urgent Health Problems: A Survey of Family Practice Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction is an important health care outcome. This study compared patients' satisfaction with care received for an urgent health problem from their family physician, at an after-hours clinic in which their physician participated, at a walk-in clinic, at the emergency department, from telephone health advisory services, or from more than 1 of those services. METHODS: We mailed a questionnaire to a random sample of patients from 36 family practices in Thunder Bay, Ontario. We elicited satisfaction with care for the most recent urgent health problem in the past 6 months on a 7-point scale (very dissatisfied to very satisfied). RESULTS: The response rate was 62.3% (5,884 of 9,397). Of the 5,722 eligible patients 1,342 (23.4%) reported an urgent health problem, and data were available for both services used and satisfaction for 1,227 patients. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported health status, satisfaction with care received for most recent urgent health problem was significantly higher among patients who visited or spoke to their family physician (mean 6.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8-6.4) compared with all other services (all P <.004, adjusted for multiple comparisons), with the exception of patients who used the after-hours clinic affiliated with their physician, whose satisfaction was not significantly different (mean 5.6; 95% CI, 5.2-6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction was highest for patients receiving care from their own family physician or their physician's after-hours clinic. These results are important for new primary care models that emphasize continuity and after-hours availability of family physicians.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".