Measuring healthcare service quality in a private hospital in a developing country by tools of Victorian patient satisfaction monitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: A survey was conducted for patient satisfaction (PS) in a private hospital in Hanoi, Vietnam using the Tools of Victorian Patient Satisfaction Monitor (VPSM) 2012.Methods: The study obtained feedbacks from patients from December 2013 to Jan 2014. After patients finished their outpatient care at the hospital, they were asked 25 questions following the VPSM. Each question can score from 1-5.Results: In total, 420 patients were interviewed and 396 patients completed the survey. Levels of customer satisfaction about service quality (SQ) were influenced by the VPSM with 6 items (25 score) and Cronbach alpha coefficient’s 0.938, including: (1) Access and Admission, (2) General Patient Information, (3) Treatment and Related Information, (4) Complaints Management, (5) Physical Environment, and (6) Discharge And Follow, with highly Corrected Item-Total Correlation of six constructs of PS (from 0.749 to 0.885). Overall, the level of highly PS in the hospital was explained almost 77.347% what could be achieved. There is no difference in the assessment of the SQ for medical examination under the “Gender” and the “level of education”, but there is a difference in the assessment of the SQ between the “monthly income level” with the model of research.Conclusions: Adjusted research model for the hospital has six constructs of levels of customer satisfaction about SQ is influenced by the VPSM with 6 items (25 score). The VPSM provides feedback on the SQ for medical examination of a private hospital experience from the adult outpatient’s perspective at the developing nation as Vietnam country.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".