Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The patient satisfaction survey is a controversial fixture of modern emergency care. Patients who are satisfied are more likely to adhere to the treatment plan and less likely to pursue legal action. However, the current surveys are susceptible to recall bias. This study uses an analysis of data collected in a separate study to assess how patients rated their physicians' care when asked key questions in person by a trained volunteer versus in the Doctors section of the Press Ganey (PG) survey. METHODS: This was an analysis of prospectively collected data obtained in a separate study evaluating how patients experience their emergency care when learners are present. Trained medical student volunteers administered the survey to a convenience sample of patients slated for discharge at a single, community, tertiary-care hospital emergency department (ED) for a total of 12 weeks between June-October 2022. We compared this with the hospital's PG data for the questions on which the survey was based. RESULTS: A total of 625 patients were approached over the study period with 313 agreeing to participate (response rate 50.1%). There were 8,460 patients discharged from the ED during those times (overall rate 3.70%). During the contemporaneous PG study quarter, the ED received 266 responses during the shifts for which the study enrolled patients, of a total 8,460 discharged from the ED during those times (response rate 3.14%). All key questions favored the in-person survey vs mailed PG survey: "I felt informed" score 79.2 (262) vs 75.6 (265), P = .02; "I felt like my [doctor] took time to listen" 85.0 (261) vs 79.6 (266), P = .05; and "satisfaction with care team" 83.0 (263) vs 74.7 (265), P = .0013. CONCLUSION: This study shows higher satisfaction scores with an in-person survey. There was also a dramatically improved response rate compared with mail in PG forms, suggesting less recall bias. An absolute 5-point difference in PG score could lead to a relative 30-point change in percentile rank. This was a limited, single-site study whose results are hypothesis-generating but suggest a new pursuit for administrations seeking to improve their scores and possibly better understand patients' experience of their 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 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 | 0.022 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".