Qualité des soins dispensés en unités de courte durée gériatriques : la perspective des aidants familiaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Until now, family caregivers have been involved very little in the processes of assessing the quality of care delivered to a hospitalized relative. This study is the second phase of a broader research project whose aim is to develop measurement scales intended for elderly patients and their caregivers on their perceptions of the quality of services delivered in Geriatric Assessment Units. More specifically, the goal of this phase of the research is to document the criteria that caregivers use to judge the quality of these services: these criteria should constitute the content of the measurement scale that is intended for them. Four focus groups, bringing together 21 caregivers, allowed for the identification of 31 criteria of quality. These criteria have been classified according to six dimensions of quality: information, communication, attitude of staff, technical quality, continuity, and physical resources. The study highlights the dual concerns of participants: the well-being of the patient and support for caregivers. It shows that caregivers consider themselves to be clients of geriatric services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".