PubMed · 10285395
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
1988. "Service quality" defined in guest relations program.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10285395/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVES: The UMLS constitutes the largest existing collection of medical terms. However, little has been published about the users and uses of the UMLS. This study sheds light on these issues. DESIGN: We designed a questionnaire consisting of 26 questions and distributed it to the UMLS user mailing list. Participants were assured complete confidentiality of their replies. To further encourage list members to respond, we promised to provide them with early results prior to publication. Sector analysis of the responses, according to employment organizations is used to obtain insights into some responses. RESULTS: We received 70 responses. The study confirms two intended uses of the UMLS: access to source terminologies (75%), and mapping among them (44%). However, most access is just to a few sources, led by SNOMED, MeSH, and ICD. Out of 119 reported purposes of use, terminology research (37), information retrieval (19), and terminology translation (14) lead. Four important observations are that the UMLS is widely used as a terminology (77%), even though it was not designed as one; many users (73%) want the NLM to mark concepts with multiple parents in an indented hierarchy and to derive a terminology from the UMLS (73%). Finally, auditing the UMLS is a top budget priority (35%) for users. CONCLUSIONS: The study reports many uses of the UMLS in a variety of subjects from terminology research to decision support and phenotyping. The study confirms that the UMLS is used to access its source terminologies and to map among them. Two primary concerns of the existing user base are auditing the UMLS and the design of a UMLS-based derived terminology.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
INTRODUCTION: Quality of health services is a matter of increasing importance to health authorities. Monitoring consumer satisfaction of health care is an important input to improving the quality of health services. This article highlights a number of important considerations learned from rural consumer studies relevant to ensuring the valid measurement of consumer satisfaction with rural health services, as a means of contributing to quality improvements. METHODS: This article compares two methods of analysing rural consumers' satisfaction with healthcare services. In one study of three rural communities in western New South Wales (NSW) and eight communities in north-west Victoria, residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with five key aspects of local health services (availability, geographical accessibility, choice, continuity, economic accessibility as measured by affordability) using a 5 point Likert scale from: one = very satisfied to five = very dissatisfied. An alternative method of assessing levels of consumer satisfaction was undertaken in the survey of eight rural communities in north-west Victoria by investigating consumers' experiences with actual and potential complaints in relation to health services. RESULTS: Both the NSW and Victorian respondents reported generally high levels of satisfaction with the five indicators of quality of health care. At the same time, 11% of Victorian study respondents reported having made a complaint about a health service in the previous 12 months, and one-third of the Victorian respondents reported experiences with their health services about which they wanted to complain but did not, over the same period. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of apparent consumer satisfaction with their health services must take particular account of the measures and research methods used. In assessing consumer satisfaction with health services in rural areas, specific attention should be given to maximising the engagement of rural consumers in order to ensure representativeness of findings, and to minimise possible biases in satisfaction ratings associated with the use of particular tools.