Quality and patient experience: A six-dimensional approach for the future of healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has significantly altered the American healthcare system. Through the establishment of the ACA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced Value-Based Purchasing (VBP), a pay-for-performance program, to the hospital payment system. From a community hospital’s standpoint, a multifaceted approach to quality and patient satisfaction on better managing the health of the community was recognized: what begins in the community ends in the hospital as a valuable indicator for each individual’s well-being. This article depicts the process of utilizing a six-dimensional approach on engaging stakeholders to improve quality of care and patient satisfaction: (1) inpatient, (2) emergency department, (3) employee, (4) physician relationships, (5) outpatient, and (6) community. As the effect of the ACA becomes more prominent, hospitals should maintain their organizational flow and care coordination through the six-dimensional approach to bring patients and their families back to the center of their 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 | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".