Patient satisfaction in Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient satisfaction is used as a benchmark for healthcare reform efforts that centre on patient-centered care.The satisfaction scores for emergency departments (ED) are frequently the lowest.We set out to investigate patient satisfaction with regard to ED healthcare services at our institution because ED is the patient's initial point of contact for receiving primary care.In this cross-sectional investigation, patients who spoke Arabic and visited our institution's emergency department (ED) were interviewed and given a validated 28-item survey questionnaire.Patient demographics and healthcare use variables were assessed as determinants of patient satisfaction.Pharmacy services ranked highest in terms of patient satisfaction with a mean score of 79, while arrival received the lowest ratings with a mean score of 63.6.The average rating was 69.8.The "Comfort of the waiting area" question had the lowest mean score, while the "Explanations provided by chemist about your prescription" question had the highest mean score and was rated as the most satisfying.Based on these findings, suggestions were made to enhance patients' impressions of the care they received, their experiences doing so, and the rating as a whole.This report offers detailed suggestions for improving patient satisfaction in Saudi Arabia's primary ED settings.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".