Satisfaction with Care among Residents and Families in a Long-Term and Complex Continuing Care Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at one organization’s implementation of a satisfaction survey for all of its residents. It also explores how satisfaction ratings vary between complex continuing care (CCC) and long-term care (LTC) residents between residents with and without dementia.\nSatisfaction with care at St. Joseph’s Health Centre (SJHC) Guelph was measured during the fall and winter of 2004/2005. A total of 107 residents and patients from both LTC and CCC were interviewed and 141 family members returned mailed surveys. Overall quality of care was rated highly by both residents and families. There were no statistically significant differences comparing LTC and CCC residents and only one comparing those with and without dementia. Within the area of medical care, 57.7% of residents with dementia compared to 78.0% of residents without dementia agreed they received therapy when needed (p=.03).\nThis information has been very valuable to SJHC staff and administrators as they strive to improve their quality of care. The project also highlights the important work that can be achieved through collaborations between researchers and health care providers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".