Acreditación hospitalaria y satisfacción de usuarios: pilares de la gestión de calidad en hospitales públicos en Manabí
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation focused its study on the hospital quality and satisfaction of the users of a public health institute located in Chone, province of Manabí-Ecuador, which obtained accreditation the “Gold” accreditation in 2018 granted by the institution "Canadian Commission on Hospital Accreditation". The objective was established to analyze the way in which the accreditation process has affected the attention to the user of the hospital service. Within the methodology the use of a user satisfaction survey stands out, as well as the analysis of the matrix of Questions, Complaints, Suggestions and Congratulations (PQSF) that allows constant monitoring of user dissatisfaction and the resolution of said events. Among the results, it’s found that hospital quality indicators improved with the accreditation process, in addition to the fact that the level of satisfaction of users is high in relation to the services they receive, with supply and pharmacy being the most common problems for users. The conclusion generated indicates that the accreditation process allows for a good level of user satisfaction, improving hospital quality; Furthermore, the managerial area and administrative activities have a strong relevance in hospital accreditation processes.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".