Consumer Satisfaction with an Adolescent Inpatient Psychiatric Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore factors influencing the satisfaction of patients, parents, and referring clinicians who used the services of an adolescent inpatient psychiatric unit, and to explore how levels of satisfaction related to the patient's symptomatic and functional improvement during the admission. METHOD: All 105 adolescents, their families, and the referring community clinicians who used an inpatient service over a 1-year period were asked to rate the patient's symptoms and functioning on admission, at discharge, and 4 months after the patient's return to the community. We obtained satisfaction ratings at discharge, and consumers were asked to rate helpfulness of the ward experience at 4 months postdischarge. Ward psychiatrists provided Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) ratings and diagnoses over the course of the inpatient stay. RESULTS: Most of the patients (83%) improved during their admission. Consumer satisfaction ratings correlated with improvement of self-identified problems and with the perceived usefulness of discharge recommendations. Satisfaction did not, however, correlate with the patient's symptomatic and functional progress. Interaction with ward staff was an important source of both positive and negative experiences. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that inpatient psychiatric staff should attend closely to the consumer's perception of difficulties and the need for practical discharge recommendations.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".