Family Experiences of Pediatric Inpatient Care in Alberta, Canada: Results From the Child HCAHPS Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient experience surveys provide feedback regarding the perceived quality of health care services. Unfortunately, many surveys have tended to be focused on an adult population, resulting in a lack of validated instruments for pediatric populations. In 2015, Alberta Health Services implemented the Child Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child HCAHPS) survey. Our objectives in the current study were to describe the use of the Child HCAHPS survey in Alberta, Canada, and to present preliminary results. METHODS: Parents and/or guardians completed a modified version of the Child HCAHPS survey via telephone within 6 weeks of their child's discharge from 1 of 14 hospitals (2 stand-alone pediatric and 12 adult). For each of the survey composites and stand-alone items, the mean "top box" score is reported, reflecting the most positive response option. Overall results were reported, as were comparisons in top box scores between stand-alone pediatric and adult facilities. RESULTS: From October 2015 to March 2017, 3389 surveys were completed. Overall, mean top box scores ranged from 41.5% ("preventing mistakes and helping you report concerns") to 95.8% ("keeping you informed about your child's care in the emergency department"). Stand-alone pediatric hospitals tended to outperform the adult ones, particularly in global ratings of care, parental involvement in decision-making, and communication between parents and providers. CONCLUSIONS: With our findings, we indicate areas in which pediatric inpatient care is being delivered well, as well as targeted areas for quality improvement. Our results may be highlighted in future comparisons among others who have adopted the Child HCAHPS.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".