Exploring the Relationship between Accreditation and Patient Satisfaction – The Case of Selected Lebanese Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patient satisfaction is one of the vital attributes to consider when evaluating the impact of accreditation \nsystems. This study aimed to explore the impact of the national accreditation system in Lebanon on patient satisfaction. \nMethods: An explanatory cross-sectional study of six hospitals in Lebanon. Patient satisfaction was measured using the \nSERVQUAL tool assessing five dimensions of quality (reliability, assurance, tangibility, empathy, and responsiveness). \nIndependent variables included hospital accreditation scores, size, location (rural/urban), and patient demographics. \nResults: The majority of patients (76.34%) were unsatisfied with the quality of services. There was no statistically \nsignificant association between accreditation classification and patient satisfaction. However, the tangibility \ndimension – reflecting hospital structural aspects such as physical facility and equipment was found to be associated \nwith patient satisfaction. \nConclusion:This study brings to light the importance of embracing more adequate patient satisfaction measures \nin the Lebanese hospital accreditation standards. Furthermore, the findings reinforce the importance of weighing \nthe patient perspective in the development and implementation of accreditation systems. As accreditation is not the \nonly driver of patient satisfaction, hospitals are encouraged to adopt complementary means of promoting patient \nsatisfaction.
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 | 0.036 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".