Patient satisfaction with quality of care of a multidisciplinary thrombosis service – a cross sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In October 2017 we opened a multidisciplinary Adult Outpatient Thrombosis Service (Thrombosis Service) in a regional health authority servicing over 300 000 people. The Thrombosis Service is a comprehensive thrombosis and anticoagulation management program with unique, interrelated clinics providing a broad spectrum of care for this patient group. Evaluation of patient satisfaction with this new model of patient care is an important quality measurement. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of patients who attended the Thrombosis Service between October 2017 and May 2019. We measured patient satisfaction with the seven-item Short Assessment of Patient Satisfaction (SAPS) which uses a 5 point scale (0-4) for responses. The continuous score range for SAPS is 0 to 28. Categorical responses for SAPS are defined as 0-10 very dissatisfied, 11-18 dissatisfied, 19-26 satisfied, and 27-28 very satisfied. We used linear regression analysis to examine the associations between patients' characteristics and their satisfaction with the Thrombosis Service. RESULTS: Of the 1058 surveys distributed, 563 were returned. The mean score for the SAPS was 22.1 (SD 4.1, range 8 to 28). For the categorical response, 85% were satisfied or very satisfied with the Thrombosis Service. The multivariate analysis showed patients with post-secondary education were more satisfied with the Thrombosis Service (β-coefficient 1.6153, p = 0.024), and patients taking warfarin were less likely to be satisfied with the Thrombosis Service (β-coefficient -1.5832, p = 0.0390). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of survey participants (85%) who attended an appointment in one of the Thrombosis Service clinics were satisfied or very satisfied with the care they received. This information may benefit other centres who are interested in developing a program to manage thrombosis and anticoagulation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".