An ISO 10002:2004-based feedback-handling system for the emergency and inpatients care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an ISO 10002:2004-based system for handling unsolicited patient feedback within a continuum of care in a Canadian hospital is presented.Through interviews of registered nurses, unit managers and experts, patient encounters and existing feedback-handling activities were studied and the learning was incorporated in a Feedback Handling System (FHS).Guidance from ISO 10004:2012 was used in defining FHS maintenance activities.New activities and items that are not suggested in ISO 10002:2004 were introduced.The FHS follow-up component was validated through actual patient feedbacks.The usefulness and feasibility of the developed FHS were verified by interviewing research participants.According to the feedback-handling experts, the FHS could be useful at the unit-level.To our knowledge, this paper shows the first application of ISO 10002:2004 in integrated health care.It also demonstrates an example of the "augmentation" of ISO 10002:2004 with ISO 10004:2012-based monitoring of patient satisfaction in integrated health care.
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 | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".