MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296078716 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26895

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Experience in Acute Care Hospitals

2022· article· en· W4296078716 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Naomi Diestelkamp, Lyubov Kushtova, Guillaume Gazil, Tracy Fernandez, Doreen MacNeil, Mélanie Josée Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisCanadian Institute for Health Information
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Visitor patternHealth careAcute careBest practiceFamily medicineNursingPatient experienceMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals and health systems have had to make changes to balance treating patients with COVID-19 and those in the hospital for other reasons. This shift from routine hospital practice and policies affected the delivery of healthcare to patients in hospitals across Canada. Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information's Canadian Patient Experiences Inpatient Care survey suggest that despite the changes to hospital procedures during the pandemic, most admitted patients - including those with COVID-19 - had a positive experience. Hospital visitor restrictions, however, did likely impact the involvement of a patient's family and friends. Compared to previous years, fewer patients reported that their family and friends were involved in their care as much as they wanted. This type of patient feedback on care experiences can play a valuable role in highlighting areas of best practice and informing decision making to improve patient care.

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)0.022
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207