MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293194502 · doi:10.47191/ijmscrs/v2-i8-29

Improve Patient–Care Provider Interactions and Shortage of Staff during Covid 19 by Implementing Person–Center Proposal Daily Round

2022· article· en· W4293194502 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Neveen Fathy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Patient satisfactionMedicineHealth careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Patient experienceMedical emergencyEconomic shortageFamily medicineNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: evaluate the improvement of Patient – Care provider interactions by implementing a person – center proposal daily round ensured by trained non-medical staff for patients admitted in wards. Design: prospective comparative study, using check list extracted from person center care and data was collected from a third-party survey approved in Saudi Arabia health care since 2019. Setting: Wadi Al Dawasir region, Saudi Arabia. Population: The study period (July 2020 to July 2021). The person center proposal daily round was started as a proactive measure to improve the patient-care provider interaction after the decrease of patient satisfaction in the third-party survey data. We include all admitted inpatient wards (231 patients) except critical area and COVID – 19 units after pandemic. Main outcome measures: we compare Patient satisfaction about sleeping, level of noise in and around room, pain controlled, Promptness in responding to the call button, Instruction given about how to care at home and Staff effort to include the patient in decisions about his treatment before and during the person center proposal round. Results: the overall trajectory of patient satisfaction is increased according to the third-party survey upon implementation of the round. In the third quarter 2020 we remark increase of satisfaction about sleep from (85%) to (92.85%) in the third quarter 2021.the same improvement is seen in the others parameters as pain-controlled satisfaction (from 81.25% to 87.5%), promptness in responding to the call button (from 79.54% to86), instruction given about how to care at home (from 88% to 89.86%) and staff effort to include patient in decision about his treatment (from 80.81% to 88% of the third quarter 2021) Conclusion: When proposal round happens well it considered as incredible tool to improve communication between nurses’ staff who are in shortage at the unit and admitted patients

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.330
GPT teacher head0.650
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research StudiesSame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207