Identifying areas for improvement in paediatric inpatient care using the Child HCAHPS survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Child-Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Child-HCAHPS) survey is a validated measure of paediatric inpatient experience. The study objective was to determine which survey questions were most correlated with respondents' overall rating of care. Knowing which questions are most important may provide valuable insights for developing targeted quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Within 6 weeks of discharge, 3,389 telephone surveys were completed by parents/guardians of children who were hospitalized for at least 24 hours. The survey was comprised of 66 questions, with responses based on Likert-scales. One survey question asked respondents to rate the overall care that their child received on a scale from 0 (worst care) to 10 (best care). The correlation between the overall rating of care and each survey measure and question was then examined using Spearman correlation coefficients. All survey questions were normalized to a 100-point score (0=worst, 100=best). RESULTS: Questions on provider coordination and nursing care were most correlated with overall experience. Quietness of hospital room (r=0.19, P<0.001), and keeping families informed in the emergency room (r=0.12, P<0.001) showed poor correlation. Correlation with overall experience was strongest for the 'communication with nurses' domain (r=0.46, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study which examines the correlation of individual questions of the Child-HCAHPS to overall rating of care within a Canadian context. Our results suggest that our large health care organization may attain initial inpatient experience improvements by focusing upon personnel-based initiatives, rather than physical attributes of our hospitals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".