Drivers of Inpatient Hospital Experience Using the <scp>HCAHPS</scp> Survey in a Canadian Setting
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
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with patients' overall rating of inpatient hospital care. DATA SOURCES: Two years of patient interview data (April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2013), linked to inpatient administrative records. STUDY DESIGN: Patients rated their overall health on a scale of 0 (worst care) to 10 (best care) using the HCAHPS instrument administered via telephone, up to 42 days postdischarge. Logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios for each independent predictor. DATA EXTRACTION: HCAHPS data were linked to inpatient records based on health care numbers and dates of service. The outcome (overall health experience) was collapsed into two groups (10 vs. 0-9). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall hospital experience of 0-9 was associated with younger age, male gender, higher level of education, being born in Canada, urgent admission, not having a family practitioner as the most responsible provider service, and not being discharged home. A length of stay of less than 3 days was protective. The c-statistic for the multivariate model was 0.635. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are novel in the Canadian population. Several questions for future research have been generated, in addition to opportunities for quality improvement within our own organization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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