Patient Experiences with Cardiac Surgery in Alberta, Canada: Results from a Validated Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionResearch shows that a better patient experience may be associated with better outcomes. Most investigations, however, have only examined patients’ overall rating of care, which does not identify individual aspects of care which may be improved. Additionally, little is known about the experience of specific clinical groups in acute care. Objectives and ApproachThe study objective was to examine the experience of patients undergoing cardiac surgery across Alberta. Surveys were completed within 6 weeks of hospital discharge, and linked with inpatient administrative records. Study eligibility was determined using Canadian Classification of Intervention (CCI) procedure codes, to include patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), valve replacement, and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (angioplasty). The survey contained 56 questions and assessed multiple aspects of care. Results for each question were classified as percentage in “top box”, where “top box” represented the best possible result (e.g. nurses “always” explaining things in a way patients could understand). ResultsFrom April 2014 to March 2017, 1,921 patients completed a survey following cardiac surgery. This included 1,117 angioplasty only (58.2%), 409 CABG only (21.3%), 308 valve replacements (16.0%) and 87 (4.5%) who underwent multiple procedures. Patients were predominantly male (74.2%), over 50 years of age (88.6%) and admitted to hospital urgently (72.7%). The top three performing questions were nurses treating patients with courtesy and respect (91.4% reporting “always”), receiving written information about symptoms to watch out for after leaving hospital (90.9% “yes”), and discussion with hospital staff about help needed once leaving hospital (90.2% “yes”). The three poorest performing questions were hospital room quietness at night (48.6% “always”), staff describing possible side effects of new medications (51.4% “always”), and hospital room/bathroom cleanliness (64.9% “always”). Conclusion/ImplicationsOur results provide patient-reported feedback about the perceived strengths and areas for improvement associated with cardiac surgery in Alberta. By linking completed surveys with administrative data, we are able to examine the experience of specific clinical groups, while eliminating additional survey burden for patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".