Development of a Quality Assessment Tool for Outpatient Infusion Clinics: A Literature Review and Pilot Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a quality assessment tool for outpatient infusion clinics, as a lack of literature exists on the subject. The authors conducted a literature review targeting studies since 2016 to identify variables that affect patient satisfaction in outpatient infusion clinics. Due to the limited number of relevant studies found, the authors shadowed 2 infusion clinic nurses to capture additional determinants of outpatient infusion clinic quality. A total of 72 variables relevant to an outpatient infusion quality assessment tool were listed. From this list of variables, a pilot survey was conducted at an outpatient rheumatology infusion clinic to assess patient satisfaction with 16 variables of interest. The pilot survey (N = 43) revealed that patients were relatively dissatisfied with walking to clinics, lack of access to public transit, lack of parking and/or free parking, lack of privacy, and flexible scheduling and/or cancellation policies. These findings demonstrate how the assessment tool may highlight specific areas of concern at an infusion clinic to identify targets for future quality improvement initiatives. Therefore, the tool presented has the potential to improve the quality of care provided to patients attending infusion facilities.
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it