Developing the first pan-Canadian acute care patient experiences survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) in partnership with stakeholders sought to develop the first pan-Canadian patient experiences survey for inpatient care (CPES-IC). The goal was to provide a national survey standard for comparative patient experience measures to facilitate benchmarking for quality improvement. A cognitive and pilot testing study design was performed using survey data from adult inpatient care settings. Participants included the inter-jurisdictional members (IJ), survey subject matter experts and CIHI (The Group). Cognitive testing of the survey took place in three Canadian jurisdictions in English and French languages. Thirty-nine individuals participated in one-on-one interviews. During pilot testing, twenty-six percent of surveys were completed over a five-month survey period. The main outcome measure was the development of new survey dimensions and Canadian survey questions. Survey dimensions of care important to patients including internal coordination of care, patient-centred care, discharge and transition processes were identified to develop the Canadian survey questions. Following cognitive testing, changes were made to better align the English and French survey questions. In pilot testing, several updates were applied including the adjustment of response categories, reformatting of skipped pattern questions and the omission of five questions due to high response rate of the “not applicable” category and survey questions perceived to be too “vague” by respondents. The Group recommended the implementation of the survey. Consultations using a consensus building approach and rigorous methodology led to the successful implementation of the CPES-IC, which is the first Canadian standardized patient experiences survey for hospital based inpatient care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".