MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2601810978

Service Quality Of Diagnostic Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology In A Tertiary Care Hospital Of Lahore (Process Measure As Patient's Perspective).

2019· article· en· W2601810978 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Rizvi, Rabia Arshed Usmani, Amna Rizvi, Salim Wazir, Taskeen Zahra, Hafza Rasool

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCollège Montmorency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLikert scaleService qualityPatient satisfactionFamily medicineSERVQUALHealth careQuality (philosophy)Service (business)NursingMarketingStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Quality of any service is the most important aspect for the manufacturer as well as the consumer. The primary objective of any nation's health system is to provide supreme quality health care services to its patients. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of diagnostic fine needle aspiration cytology service in a tertiary care hospital. As Patient's perspectives provide valuable information on quality of process, therefore, patient's perception in terms of satisfaction with the service was measured. METHODS: In this cross sectional analytical study, 291 patients undergoing fine needle aspiration cytology in Mayo Hospital were selected by systematic sampling technique. Information regarding satisfaction of patients with four dimensions of service quality process, namely "procedure, sterilization, conduct and competency of doctor" was collected through interview on questionnaire. The questionnaire was developed on SERVQUAL model, a measurement tool, for quality assessment of services provided to patients. All items were assessed on 2- point likert scale (0=dissatisfied, 1=satisfied). Frequencies and percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied patients were recorded for each item and all items in each dimension were scored. If the percentage of sum of all item scores of a dimension was ≥60, the dimension was 'good quality'. Whereas <60% was 'poor quality' dimension. Data was analysed using epi-info-3.5.1. Fisher test was applied to check statistical significance. (p-value <0.05). RESULTS: Out of the 4 dimensions of service quality process, Procedure (48.8%), Sterilization (51.5%) and practitioner conduct (50.9%) were perceived as 'poor' by the patients. Only practitioner competency (67.4%) was perceived as 'good'. Comparison of dimensions of service quality scoring with overall level of patient satisfaction revealed that all 4 dimensions were significantly related to patient dissatisfaction (p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that service quality of therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in public hospitals should be routinely monitored from the patients' point of view as most aspects of service quality in public hospitals of Pakistan, require improvements. In this manner patient's satisfaction regarding use of services in public hospitals can be made better.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207