array:23 [ "pii" => "S2253808913001444" "issn" => "22538089" "doi" => "10.1016/j.remnie.2013.11.003" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2014-03-01" "aid" => "119" "copyright" => "Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMNIM" "copyrightAnyo" => "2013" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 0 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2014;33:65-71" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 713 "formatos" => array:2 [ "HTML" => 522 "PDF" => 191 ] ] "Traduccion" => array:1 [ "es" => array:19 [ "pii" => "S2253654X13000401" "issn" => "2253654X" "doi" => "10.1016/j.remn.2013.03.001" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2014-03-01" "aid" => "119" "copyright" => "Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMNIM" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 0 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2014;33:65-71" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 945 "formatos" => array:3 [ "EPUB" => 9 "HTML" => 708 "PDF" => 228 ] ] "es" => array:13 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Original</span>" "titulo" => "Personalización del nivel de referencia: patrón oro para evaluar la calidad de servicio percibida" "tienePdf" => "es" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "es" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "es" 1 => "en" ] "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "65" "paginaFinal" => "71" ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "en" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Personalizing the reference level: gold standard to evaluate the quality of service perceived" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "es" => true "en" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "es" => true ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0025" "etiqueta" => "Figura 3" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr3.jpeg" "Alto" => 1651 "Ancho" => 2997 "Tamanyo" => 245904 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "es" => "<p id="spar0055" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Calidad de servicio: valores medios de la diferencia entre percepciones y dintel de referencia.</p>" ] ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "I. Rodrigo-Rincón, M. Reyes-Pérez, M.E. Martínez-Lozano" "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "I." "apellidos" => "Rodrigo-Rincón" ] 1 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "M." "apellidos" => "Reyes-Pérez" ] 2 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "M.E." "apellidos" => "Martínez-Lozano" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "es" "Traduccion" => array:1 [ "en" => array:9 [ "pii" => "S2253808913001444" "doi" => "10.1016/j.remnie.2013.11.003" "estado" => "S300" "subdocumento" => "" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2253808913001444?idApp=UINPBA00004N" ] ] "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2253654X13000401?idApp=UINPBA00004N" "url" => "/2253654X/0000003300000002/v1_201403040016/S2253654X13000401/v1_201403040016/es/main.assets" ] ] "itemSiguiente" => array:19 [ "pii" => "S2253808914000020" "issn" => "22538089" "doi" => "10.1016/j.remnie.2014.01.001" "estado" => "S300" "fechaPublicacion" => "2014-03-01" "aid" => "517" "copyright" => "Elsevier España, S.L. and SEMNIM" "documento" => "article" "crossmark" => 0 "subdocumento" => "fla" "cita" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2014;33:72-8" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:2 [ "total" => 626 "formatos" => array:2 [ "HTML" => 434 "PDF" => 192 ] ] "en" => array:13 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Original Article</span>" "titulo" => "Variables that influence the indication of a second myocardial perfusion gated-SPECT after a normal stress-rest gated SPECT" "tienePdf" => "en" "tieneTextoCompleto" => "en" "tieneResumen" => array:2 [ 0 => "en" 1 => "es" ] "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "72" "paginaFinal" => "78" ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Variables que influyen en la indicación de una segunda gated-SPECT de perfusión miocárdica después una gated-SPECTde estrés-reposo normal" ] ] "contieneResumen" => array:2 [ "en" => true "es" => true ] "contieneTextoCompleto" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "contienePdf" => array:1 [ "en" => true ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0015" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 3" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr3.jpeg" "Alto" => 1234 "Ancho" => 1004 "Tamanyo" => 203658 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0055" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Example of a normal first myocardial perfusion maximum stress-rest SPECT (1) in a patient with atypical pain after the implantation of a stent in the right coronary artery and of a second SPECT (2) performed 2 years later in which a moderate reversible apical defect may be observed. E: stress, EC: short axis, ELH: long horizontal axis, ELV: long vertical axis, R: rest.</p>" ] ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "autoresLista" => "G. Romero-Farina, J. Candell-Riera, S. Aguadé-Bruix, G. Cuberas-Borrós, M.N. Pizzi, A. Santos, G. de León, D. García-Dorado" "autores" => array:8 [ 0 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "G." "apellidos" => "Romero-Farina" ] 1 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "J." "apellidos" => "Candell-Riera" ] 2 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "S." "apellidos" => "Aguadé-Bruix" ] 3 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "G." "apellidos" => "Cuberas-Borrós" ] 4 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "M.N." "apellidos" => "Pizzi" ] 5 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "A." "apellidos" => "Santos" ] 6 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "G." "apellidos" => "de León" ] 7 => array:2 [ "nombre" => "D." "apellidos" => "García-Dorado" ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "Traduccion" => array:1 [ "es" => array:9 [ "pii" => "S2253654X13001157" "doi" => "10.1016/j.remn.2013.06.009" "estado" => "S300" "subdocumento" => "" "abierto" => array:3 [ "ES" => false "ES2" => false "LATM" => false ] "gratuito" => false "lecturas" => array:1 [ "total" => 0 ] "idiomaDefecto" => "es" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2253654X13001157?idApp=UINPBA00004N" ] ] "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2253808914000020?idApp=UINPBA00004N" "url" => "/22538089/0000003300000002/v1_201403190010/S2253808914000020/v1_201403190010/en/main.assets" ] "en" => array:21 [ "idiomaDefecto" => true "cabecera" => "<span class="elsevierStyleTextfn">Original Article</span>" "titulo" => "Personalizing the reference level: Gold standard to evaluate the quality of service perceived" "tieneTextoCompleto" => true "paginas" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "paginaInicial" => "65" "paginaFinal" => "71" ] ] "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "autoresLista" => "I. Rodrigo-Rincón, M. Reyes-Pérez, M.E. Martínez-Lozano" "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => array:4 [ "nombre" => "I." "apellidos" => "Rodrigo-Rincón" "email" => array:1 [ 0 => "mi.rodrigo.rincon@cfnavarra.es" ] "referencia" => array:2 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">a</span>" "identificador" => "aff0005" ] 1 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">¿</span>" "identificador" => "cor0005" ] ] ] 1 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "M." "apellidos" => "Reyes-Pérez" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">b</span>" "identificador" => "aff0010" ] ] ] 2 => array:3 [ "nombre" => "M.E." "apellidos" => "Martínez-Lozano" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSup">c</span>" "identificador" => "aff0015" ] ] ] ] "afiliaciones" => array:3 [ 0 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Investigación y Gestión del Conocimiento, Departamento de Salud del Gobierno de Navarra, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain" "etiqueta" => "a" "identificador" => "aff0005" ] 1 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Gestión de la Calidad, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain" "etiqueta" => "b" "identificador" => "aff0010" ] 2 => array:3 [ "entidad" => "Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain" "etiqueta" => "c" "identificador" => "aff0015" ] ] "correspondencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "cor0005" "etiqueta" => "⁎" "correspondencia" => "Corresponding author." ] ] ] ] "titulosAlternativos" => array:1 [ "es" => array:1 [ "titulo" => "Personalización del nivel de referencia: patrón oro para evaluar la calidad de servicio percibida" ] ] "resumenGrafico" => array:2 [ "original" => 0 "multimedia" => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0030" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 3" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr3.jpeg" "Alto" => 991 "Ancho" => 1800 "Tamanyo" => 163440 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0055" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Quality of service: mean values of the differences between perceptions and the threshold of reference.</p>" ] ] ] "textoCompleto" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSections"><span id="sec0005" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0065">Introduction</span><p id="par0005" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">One of the most relevant elements for improvement in the quality of organizations is knowing the satisfaction and the quality of the services perceived by the consumers.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRefs" href="#bib0005"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">1–3</span></a></p><p id="par0010" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Although the concepts of satisfaction and service quality service are apparently simple, there is no consensus with regard to their meaning or how to conceptualize the relationship between satisfaction and the quality of the service provided or the most correct method for their measurement.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0015"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">3</span></a> Nonetheless, most institutions use some type of tool for their measurement.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0020"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">4</span></a></p><p id="par0015" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The method most frequently used to measure both satisfaction as the service quality is with questionnaires.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRefs" href="#bib0025"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">5,6</span></a> Most questionnaires use scales following a structure of Likert-type response with a series of categories of response along the continuum “favorable/unfavorable”. On numerous occasions, the question only indicates the meaning of the initial and final points with intermediate values remaining unspecified. One example of this is question number 3 of the healthcare barometer which asks: “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way in which the public healthcare system works in Spain?” To answer, the individual is shown a card with numbers from 1 to 10, with 1 corresponding to very dissatisfied and 10 to satisfied,<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">7</span></a> without specifying the intermediate values.</p><p id="par0020" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Analysis of the results of questions with this type of scale is not simple. How can the cutoff or reference value to be considered as a good result be determined? Above what score should the institution consider an aspect as a strong point or at what value is there an area of improvement?</p><p id="par0025" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">To answer this question different approaches have been used such as the determination of an objective value from a benchmark<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0040"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">8</span></a> or a desired value. That is, users are asked about their perception of an aspect with the aim of involving the users in the evaluation of a department, but the interpretation of the results is performed with a subjective aim established by the service provider.</p><p id="par0030" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">To measure the service quality other authors<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRefs" href="#bib0045"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">9,10</span></a> have used the model of discrepancies or “gaps” model comparing the perceptions of the user with respect to their expectations.</p><p id="par0035" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">In the present study we considered an alternative to the setting of a subjective cutoff point by the Department of Nuclear Medicine (DNM). The proposal consisted in having the internal customers requiring tests from the DNM themselves establish the cutoff at which the quality perceived is deemed good.</p><p id="par0040" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">We compared the strong points, the areas of improvement detected and those discrepant with 2 reference levels, that proposed by the DNM and the internal consumers.</p><p id="par0045" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The objective was to determine the cutoff at which the internal consumers of the DNM consider the service quality as good.</p></span><span id="sec0010" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0070">Material and methods</span><p id="par0050" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The framework of the sample was made up of professionals from the clinical departments of a tertiary level hospital requesting tests or consultations from the DNM. The subjects constituting the sample were physicians from other departments who had requested at least 5 tests from the DNM in 2010.</p><p id="par0055" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">On identifying these professionals they were sent a questionnaire designed to evaluate the quality of service provided by the DNM (Annex 1). Two modalities of questionnaire completion were provided. The questionnaire in paper form was sent to each professional by internal mail of the hospital together with an envelope for returning the questionnaire. In addition, the professionals were sent an email with a link in order to answer the questionnaire anonymously. They were told that the two modalities were incompatible. Two reminders were sent. The collection period of the questionnaires was from June to September, 2011. Of a total of 237 professionals, 71 answered (30% response rate).</p><p id="par0060" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The questionnaire consisted of 14 items, 6 of which involved items related to the quality of the services. The scale used for the questions ranged from 0 (worst possible score) to 10 (best possible score).</p><p id="par0065" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The reliability of the questionnaire measured with the Cronbach alpha coefficient was of 0.643, with the general alpha value with typified items being 0.790.</p><p id="par0070" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">At the end of the questionnaire there was an item asking the professional to state at what numerical score they would consider the service quality as good, considering this score as a personalized cutoff. Prior to the incorporation of the item to the questionnaire, 5 interviews of professionals were undertaken to perform cognitive validation of the question and thereby confirm that the statement was correct and comprehensible.</p><p id="par0075" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Prior to the analysis of the results the DNM was requested to set a cutoff at which they considered that the service quality provided was good. By consensus the department determined the cutoff of 7 and this value was denominated the “department cutoff”.</p><p id="par0080" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">An element evaluated was considered as a strong point of the department if its lowest value of the confidence interval of 95% was greater than the reference level, and an area of improvement was considered if the highest value of the confidence interval of 95% was lower than the value of this level.</p><p id="par0085" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Using the personalized cutoff the number of discrepancies was calculated by the difference between the score given to each question and the value at which the subject considered that the service quality was good. For example, if an individual gave an item referring to the service quality the reports 8 points and considered that 9 was the score that should be obtained to provide good quality service, we have a value of −1 point (8 minus 9). All the negative values such as the example indicated were considered to be discrepant. Likewise, the number of discrepancies was calculated applying the value of 7 as the threshold of reference. This value was what had been established by the DNM.</p><p id="par0090" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The statistical tests used included the binomial method for dependent samples and Student's <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">t</span> test for paired data.</p></span><span id="sec0015" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0075">Results</span><p id="par0095" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#tbl0005">Table 1</a> shows the results of the analysis of the items measuring the service quality.</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="tbl0005"></elsevierMultimedia><p id="par0100" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">With regard to the question “<span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Above what score do you consider that the service quality is good?”</span> 68.1% of the subjects gave a value greater than 7. That is, the level of reference established <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">a priori</span> by the service was below the reference level given by many of the professionals (<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#fig0020">Fig. 1</a>).</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0020"></elsevierMultimedia><span id="sec0020" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0080">Analysis of the results from the mean thresholds of reference</span><p id="par0105" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">One of the fundamental objectives of the study was to know the strong points and areas of improvement in the DNM. On analyzing the results of each of the questions we found that of the 6 questions measuring the quality of the service all were strong points with the cutoff set by the department while 3 were not so on considering the mean personalized cutoff (<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#fig0025">Fig. 2</a>).</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0025"></elsevierMultimedia><p id="par0110" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">No areas of improvement were detected with either of the 2 methods used since the confidence interval was not below the levels established for any variable.</p></span><span id="sec0025" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0085">Analysis of the disagreement with each item evaluated</span><p id="par0115" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The number and percentage of discrepancies per question with both cutoffs are shown in <a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#tbl0010">Table 2</a>.</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="tbl0010"></elsevierMultimedia><p id="par0120" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Using the personalized cutoff a total of 62 discrepancy values (19.2%) were detected while the mean cutoff of the department detected 41 (13%), with these differences being statistically significant (difference: 6.44%; CI 95%: 0.83–12.06).</p><p id="par0125" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">No statistically significant differences were observed in the item by item analysis.</p><p id="par0130" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The mean values for each item of the variables “difference in perception with regard to the personalized cutoff” and “difference in perception with respect to the department cutoff” are shown in <a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#fig0030">Fig. 3</a>.</p><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0030"></elsevierMultimedia><p id="par0135" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The axis of ordinates was from −10 to +10, being the range of possible scores.</p><p id="par0140" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">No element was given a mean negative value indicating that the scores of quality perceived by the professionals were higher than the cutoff set by themselves or that established by the DNM (value 7). Nonetheless, on comparing the mean values of all the elements evaluated, statistically significant differences were observed on comparing the 2 cutoffs, with the mean differences for threshold 7 being greater than for the personalized cutoff (<span class="elsevierStyleItalic">p</span><span class="elsevierStyleHsp" style=""></span><<span class="elsevierStyleHsp" style=""></span>0.05, Student's <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">t</span> test for paired data).</p></span></span><span id="sec0030" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0090">Discussion</span><p id="par0145" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The main objectives on undertaking a questionnaire of the quality of service perceived are to determine the strong points and the areas of improvement from the point of view of those surveyed. However, the methodology used for the analysis of the results, and thus, the interpretation of these results is conditioned by the type of scale of the variables and the cutoff established for evaluation.</p><p id="par0150" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The analysis of the results indicates that the interpretation of the strong points differs based on the method used. Of the 6 items measuring the quality of service all were considered strong points from the cutoff set by the DNM while only 3 were considered strong points with the personalized cutoff. There were no discrepancies with regard to the areas of improvement, with none being detected independently of the method used. That is, when the cutoff was established by the evaluator, fewer strong points were detected than those that would have been detected by the DNM using its own threshold. Similarly, a greater number of discrepancies were detected on using the personalized cutoff versus the department cutoff, with the differences being statistically significant. Likewise, on calculating the difference between the mean values of quality perceived given and the reference levels, the values obtained were significantly higher for the department than for the personalized cutoff in all the items.</p><p id="par0155" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The discrepancy as to the areas of improvement and strong points and the number of discrepancies varied based on how far the personalized cutoff was from the other threshold established. The problem is that since the user is not consulted with regard to the value at which the quality of service may be considered as good, the error committed in the interpretation of the results is not known. Nonetheless, regardless of the results obtained, from a conceptual point of view the reference cutoff and thus, the gold standard, should be that indicated by the subject responding to the questionnaire.</p><p id="par0160" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">On the other hand, analysis of the differences or discrepancies is not a new method since this has been used since the 1980s. The discrepancy method considers that the evaluation of quality is the result of the divergence between perceptions and expectations.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRefs" href="#bib0035"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">7,10–12</span></a></p><p id="par0165" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The method proposed in this study differs from the discrepancy models such as that by Parasuraman et al.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0050"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">10</span></a> in 2 ways. The first is that with the methodology which we used expectations were not considered. The debate regarding the measurement of expectations is explained in other studies.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRefs" href="#bib0065"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">13–15</span></a> Nevertheless, the detractors of the discrepancy model indicate that the inclusion of expectations may be inefficient and unnecessary because individuals tend to indicate high levels of expectation and thus, the values of perception are rarely surpassed.</p><p id="par0170" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Secondly, with our method it is not necessary for the subject to provide a level of reference for each item. It is therefore not necessary to duplicate the number of items made but rather to add one more question to the questionnaire. To avoid duplicity of items, other authors<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0080"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">16</span></a> have used a questionnaire in which the scale of response combines expectations and perceptions.</p><p id="par0175" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">With respect to the type of scale, polytomous variables allow relatively simple classification of the categories referring to the discrepancies. Nonetheless, many organizations use an ordinal scale in which only the final cutoffs of the scale are set. This option presents some inconveniences. First, the use of digits – numbers – does not guarantee adequate psychometric properties for using the usual statistical tests. Second, there is the problem of defining a reference threshold of a cutoff at which a strong point or area of improvement may be considered.</p><p id="par0180" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The method described takes into account the opinion of the subjects surveyed when setting the level of reference versus other systems in which it is the service purveyor who subjectively establishes this value, often <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">a posteriori</span> and after knowing the results. That is, grant the value of judgment to the individual, which is, on the other hand, implicit when wishing to obtain the user's opinion of the quality of service.</p><p id="par0185" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">In addition, most studies published focus on the evaluation by patients, with studies centered on assessment by professionals being less frequent. This study did not ask patients about the quality of service but rather the professionals requesting tests or consultations to the DNM and thus, these results cannot be extrapolated to patients, although the conceptual basis is the same.</p><p id="par0190" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The DNM considered the cutoff to be 7 because the professionals are, in general, less generous in giving scores than patients.<a class="elsevierStyleCrossRef" href="#bib0085"><span class="elsevierStyleSup">17</span></a> The cutoff set by the DNM would have been higher if the quality perceived was to have been evaluated by the patients.</p><p id="par0195" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">Comparative data of cutoffs given by users (internal or external consumers) in other studies are not provided since we did not find any article applying this type of focus.</p><p id="par0200" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">In summary, the novelty of this study lays in that it proposes that the users who respond to the questionnaire should establish the cutoff at which the quality is perceived to be good since the final image of quality perceived by the internal consumers of a department is different if the cutoff set by the department is used versus that indicated by the individuals responding to the questionnaires.</p></span><span id="sec0035" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0095">Author contribution</span><p id="par0205" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">M. Isabel Rodrigo Rincón participated in all the phases of article preparation including the design, data analysis and redaction.</p><p id="par0210" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">María Reyes Pérez participated in the field work and data analysis.</p><p id="par0215" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">M. Eugenia Martínez contributed to the conception and design of the study as well as the approval of the final version for publication.</p></span><span id="sec0040" class="elsevierStyleSection elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0100">Conflict of interests</span><p id="par0220" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall">The authors declare no conflict of interests.</p></span></span>" "textoCompletoSecciones" => array:1 [ "secciones" => array:11 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xres322636" "titulo" => array:5 [ 0 => "Abstract" 1 => "Objective" 2 => "Material and method" 3 => "Results" 4 => "Conclusions" ] ] 1 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec305006" "titulo" => "Keywords" ] 2 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xres322635" "titulo" => array:5 [ 0 => "Resumen" 1 => "Objetivo" 2 => "Material y método" 3 => "Resultados" 4 => "Conclusiones" ] ] 3 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "xpalclavsec305005" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" ] 4 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0005" "titulo" => "Introduction" ] 5 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0010" "titulo" => "Material and methods" ] 6 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "sec0015" "titulo" => "Results" "secciones" => array:2 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0020" "titulo" => "Analysis of the results from the mean thresholds of reference" ] 1 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0025" "titulo" => "Analysis of the disagreement with each item evaluated" ] ] ] 7 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0030" "titulo" => "Discussion" ] 8 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0035" "titulo" => "Author contribution" ] 9 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "sec0040" "titulo" => "Conflict of interests" ] 10 => array:1 [ "titulo" => "References" ] ] ] "pdfFichero" => "main.pdf" "tienePdf" => true "fechaRecibido" => "2013-01-14" "fechaAceptado" => "2013-03-03" "PalabrasClave" => array:2 [ "en" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Keywords" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec305006" "palabras" => array:4 [ 0 => "Service quality" 1 => "Gold standard" 2 => "Threshold" 3 => "Survey" ] ] ] "es" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "clase" => "keyword" "titulo" => "Palabras clave" "identificador" => "xpalclavsec305005" "palabras" => array:4 [ 0 => "Calidad percibida" 1 => "Patrón oro" 2 => "Punto de corte" 3 => "Encuestas" ] ] ] ] "tieneResumen" => true "resumen" => array:2 [ "en" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Abstract" "resumen" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0010">Objective</span><p id="spar0005" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">To know the cutoff point at which in-house Nuclear Medicine Department (MND) customers consider that the quality of service is good (personalized cutoff).</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0015">Material and method</span><p id="spar0010" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">We conducted a survey of the professionals who had requested at least 5 tests to the Nuclear Medicine Department. A total of 71 doctors responded (response rate: 30%). A question was added to the questionnaire for the user to establish a cutoff point for which they would consider the quality of service as good. The quality non-conformities, areas of improvement and strong points of the six questions measuring the quality of service (Likert scale 0 to 10) were compared with two different thresholds: personalized cutoff and one proposed by the service itself a priori. Test statistics: binomial and Student's <span class="elsevierStyleItalic">t</span> test for paired data.</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0020">Results</span><p id="spar0015" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">A cutoff value of 7 was proposed by the service as a reference while 68.1% of respondents suggested a cutoff above 7 points (mean 7.9 points). The 6 elements of perceived quality were considered strong points with the cutoff proposed by the MND, while there were 3 detected with the personalized threshold. Thirteen percent of the answers were nonconformities with the service cutoff versus 19.2% with the personalized one, the differences being statistically significant (difference 95% CI 6.44%: 0.83–12.06).</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0025">Conclusions</span><p id="spar0020" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">The final image of the perceived quality of an in-house customer is different when using the cutoff established by the Department versus the personalized cutoff given by the respondent.</p>" ] "es" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Resumen" "resumen" => "<span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0035">Objetivo</span><p id="spar0025" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Conocer el punto de corte a partir del cual los clientes internos del servicio de medicina nuclear (MN) consideran que la calidad de servicio es buena (punto de corte personalizado).</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0040">Material y método</span><p id="spar0030" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Se realizó una encuesta a los profesionales que hubieran solicitado al menos 5 pruebas al servicio de medicina nuclear. Contestaron 71 médicos (tasa de respuesta del 30%). Se añadió al cuestionario una pregunta para que el usuario estableciera el punto de corte a partir del cual el encuestado considera que la calidad de servicio es buena. Se compararon las no conformidades, las áreas de mejora y los puntos fuertes de las 6 preguntas que medían la calidad de servicio (escala Likert de 0 al 10) con 2 dinteles de referencia: el punto de corte personalizado y el que propuso a priori el propio servicio. Test estadísticos: binomial y t de Student para datos pareados.</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0045">Resultados</span><p id="spar0035" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">El servicio propuso el valor de 7 como punto de corte, mientras que el 68,1% de los encuestados propuso un valor superior a 7 puntos (media 7,9 puntos). Los 6 elementos de calidad percibida fueron considerados puntos fuertes con el punto de corte propuesto por el servicio de MN, mientras que fueron 3 los detectados con el punto de corte personalizado. El 13% de las valoraciones fueron no conformes con el punto de corte del servicio frente al 19,2% con el punto de corte personalizado, siendo las diferencias estadísticamente significativas (diferencia 6,44%; IC 95%: 0,83-12,06).</p> <span class="elsevierStyleSectionTitle" id="sect0050">Conclusiones</span><p id="spar0040" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">La imagen final de la calidad percibida por los clientes internos de un servicio es diferente si se utiliza el punto de corte que establece el servicio frente al que indica el propio individuo que responde al cuestionario.</p>" ] ] "NotaPie" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etiqueta" => "☆" "nota" => "<p class="elsevierStyleNotepara" id="npar0005">Please cite this article as: Rodrigo-Rincón I, Reyes-Pérez M, Martínez-Lozano ME. Personalización del nivel de referencia: patrón oro para evaluar la calidad de servicio percibida. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol. 2014;33:65–71.</p>" ] ] "apendice" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "seccion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "apendice" => "<p id="par0225" class="elsevierStylePara elsevierViewall"><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0005"></elsevierMultimedia><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0010"></elsevierMultimedia><elsevierMultimedia ident="fig0015"></elsevierMultimedia></p>" "etiqueta" => "Annex 1" "titulo" => "Questionnaire to internal consumers" "identificador" => "sec0045" ] ] ] ] "multimedia" => array:8 [ 0 => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0020" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr1.jpeg" "Alto" => 508 "Ancho" => 929 "Tamanyo" => 77396 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0045" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Distribution of the frequencies of the score given to the question “<span class="elsevierStyleItalic">Above what score do you consider that the service quality is good?</span>”.</p>" ] ] 1 => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0025" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 2" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr2.jpeg" "Alto" => 1041 "Ancho" => 1900 "Tamanyo" => 176598 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0050" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Mean values and confidence intervals of 95% of the items referring to the service quality.</p>" ] ] 2 => array:7 [ "identificador" => "fig0030" "etiqueta" => "Fig. 3" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "gr3.jpeg" "Alto" => 991 "Ancho" => 1800 "Tamanyo" => 163440 ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0055" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Quality of service: mean values of the differences between perceptions and the threshold of reference.</p>" ] ] 3 => array:7 [ "identificador" => "tbl0005" "etiqueta" => "Table 1" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIATABLA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "tabla" => array:1 [ "tablatextoimagen" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "tabla" => array:1 [ 0 => """ <table border="0" frame="\n \t\t\t\t\tvoid\n \t\t\t\t" class=""><thead title="thead"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Item \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Mean (CI 95%) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">SD \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Minimum \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Maximum \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></thead><tbody title="tbody"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Attitude to collaborate in organizational problems \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.34 (7.77–8.91) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.81 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Speed in the performance of tests/consultation \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">7.96 (7.557–8.36) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.64 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">4 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Speed in emitting reports \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.33 (7.97–8.7) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.48 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">4 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Reports quality \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.79 (8.46–9.13) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.27 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">5 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Information on criteria for not performing tests \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">7.93 (7.06–8.80) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">2.24 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Capacity of resolution \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.51 (8.22–8.80) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.15 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Satisfaction with DNM \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.89 (8.60–9.19) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.12 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Recommendation of service to other professionals \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.67 (8.31–9.02) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">1.14 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Score at which the service quality may be considered good \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">7.91 (7.68–8.14) \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">0.75 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></tbody></table> """ ] "imagenFichero" => array:1 [ 0 => "xTab470551.png" ] ] ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0060" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Results of the items referring to the quality of service together with the question threshold.</p>" ] ] 4 => array:7 [ "identificador" => "tbl0010" "etiqueta" => "Table 2" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIATABLA" "mostrarFloat" => true "mostrarDisplay" => false "tabla" => array:2 [ "leyenda" => "<p id="spar0070" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">n</span> indicates the number of persons answering each item of the questionnaire; % indicates the percentage of individuals considering discrepancy with this item; % over the total of discrepancies indicates what percentage of the total of discrepancies corresponds to each item.</p>" "tablatextoimagen" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "tabla" => array:1 [ 0 => """ <table border="0" frame="\n \t\t\t\t\tvoid\n \t\t\t\t" class=""><thead title="thead"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Item \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t"><span class="elsevierStyleItalic">n</span> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " colspan="3" align="center" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">Individual threshold</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " colspan="3" align="center" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">DNM threshold</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black"> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black"> \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">No. of discrepancies \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">% \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">% over total of discrepancies \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">No. of discrepancies \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">% \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-head\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t" style="border-bottom: 2px solid black">% over total of discrepancies \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></thead><tbody title="tbody"><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Attitude to collaborate in organizational problems \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">41 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">19.5 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">12.9 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">5 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">12.2 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">12.2 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Speed in the performance of tests/consultations \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">67 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">20 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">29.9 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">32.3 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">15 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">22.4. \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">36.6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Speed in emitting reports \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">66 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">15 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">22.7 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">24.2 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">11 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">16.7 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">26.8 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Reports quality \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">58 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">5 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8.1 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">4 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6.9 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">9.8 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Information on criteria for not performing tests \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">28 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">6 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">21.4 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">9.7 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">3 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">10.7 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">7.3 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Capacity of resolution \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">63 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">8 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">12.7 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">12.9 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">3 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">4.8 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">7.3 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr><tr title="table-row"><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="left" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">Total \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">323 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">62 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">19.2 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">100 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">41 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">13.0 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td><td class="td" title="\n \t\t\t\t\ttable-entry\n \t\t\t\t " align="char" valign="\n \t\t\t\t\ttop\n \t\t\t\t">100 \t\t\t\t\t\t\n \t\t\t\t</td></tr></tbody></table> """ ] "imagenFichero" => array:1 [ 0 => "xTab470552.png" ] ] ] ] "descripcion" => array:1 [ "en" => "<p id="spar0065" class="elsevierStyleSimplePara elsevierViewall">Analysis of discrepancies: individual threshold and threshold established by the department of nuclear medicine.</p>" ] ] 5 => array:5 [ "identificador" => "fig0005" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => false "mostrarDisplay" => true "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "fx1.jpeg" "Alto" => 1533 "Ancho" => 1471 "Tamanyo" => 392243 ] ] ] 6 => array:5 [ "identificador" => "fig0010" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => false "mostrarDisplay" => true "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "fx2.jpeg" "Alto" => 1067 "Ancho" => 1471 "Tamanyo" => 187055 ] ] ] 7 => array:5 [ "identificador" => "fig0015" "tipo" => "MULTIMEDIAFIGURA" "mostrarFloat" => false "mostrarDisplay" => true "figura" => array:1 [ 0 => array:4 [ "imagen" => "fx3.jpeg" "Alto" => 1688 "Ancho" => 1479 "Tamanyo" => 286544 ] ] ] ] "bibliografia" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "References" "seccion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "identificador" => "bibs0005" "bibliografiaReferencia" => array:17 [ 0 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0005" "etiqueta" => "1" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "La satisfacción del usuario como indicador de calidad en un servicio de Medicina Nuclear" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "A. Garcia Vicente" 1 => "A. Soriano Castrejón" 2 => "C. Martínez Delgado" 3 => "V.M. Poblete García" 4 => "S. Ruiz Solís" 5 => "M. Cortés Romera" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl" "fecha" => "2007" "volumen" => "26" "paginaInicial" => "146" "paginaFinal" => "152" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17524308" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 1 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0010" "etiqueta" => "2" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Implantación de un sistema de Gestión de Calidad según norma UNE-UN-ISO 9001:2008 en un Servicio de Medicina Nuclear" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "V.M. Poblete García" 1 => "M.P. Talavera Rubio" 2 => "A. Palomar Muñoz" 3 => "J.P. Pilkington Woll" 4 => "J.M. Cordero García" 5 => "A.M. García Vicente" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.remn.2012.01.004" "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol" "fecha" => "2013" "volumen" => "32" "paginaInicial" => "1" "paginaFinal" => "7" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23177340" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 2 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0015" "etiqueta" => "3" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "A critical review of patient satisfaction" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "L. Gill" 1 => "L. White" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl)" "fecha" => "2009" "volumen" => "22" "paginaInicial" => "8" "paginaFinal" => "19" ] ] ] ] ] ] 3 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0020" "etiqueta" => "4" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "R. Crowe" 1 => "H. Gage" 2 => "S. Hampson" 3 => "J. Hart" 4 => "A. Kimber" 5 => "L. Storey" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Health Technol Assess" "fecha" => "2002" "volumen" => "6" "paginaInicial" => "1" "paginaFinal" => "244" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12925269" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 4 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0025" "etiqueta" => "5" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "La satisfacción del paciente como una medida del resultado de la atención sanitaria" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "J.J. Mira" 1 => "J. Aranaz" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Med Clin (Barc)" "fecha" => "2000" "volumen" => "114" "numero" => "Suppl. 3" "paginaInicial" => "26" "paginaFinal" => "33" ] ] ] ] ] ] 5 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0030" "etiqueta" => "6" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Evaluación del grado de satisfacción de los pacientes atendidos en un servicio de Medicina Nuclear" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => true "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "M. Reyes-Pérez" 1 => "M.I. Rodrigo-Rincón" 2 => "M.E. Martínez-Lozano" 3 => "E. Goñi-Gironés" 4 => "A. Camarero-Salazar" 5 => "P. Serra-Arbeloa" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1016/j.remn.2011.08.004" "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol" "fecha" => "2012" "volumen" => "31" "paginaInicial" => "192" "paginaFinal" => "201" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23067688" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 6 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0035" "etiqueta" => "7" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "referenciaCompleta" => "Cuestionario del Barómetro Sanitario utilizado por el Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. 2011 [accessed 30.11.12]. Available in: <a id="intr0010" class="elsevierStyleInterRef" href="http://www.msps.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/docs/BS_2011_Cuestionario.pdf">http://www.msps.es/estadEstudios/estadisticas/docs/BS_2011_Cuestionario.pdf</a>" ] ] ] 7 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0040" "etiqueta" => "8" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Análisis de la calidad de la información proporcionada a los pacientes por parte de unidades clínicas especializadas ambulatorias mediante análisis por modelos multinivel" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "I. Rodrigo-Rincón" 1 => "J.J. Viñes" 2 => "F. Guillén-Grima" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "An Sist Sanit Navar" "fecha" => "2009" "volumen" => "32" "paginaInicial" => "183" "paginaFinal" => "197" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19738643" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 8 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0045" "etiqueta" => "9" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: implications for future research" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "A. Parasuraman" 1 => "V. Zeithaml" 2 => "L. Berry" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Mark" "fecha" => "1994" "volumen" => "58" "paginaInicial" => "111" "paginaFinal" => "124" ] ] ] ] ] ] 9 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0050" "etiqueta" => "10" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "SERVQUAL. A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions for service quality" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:3 [ 0 => "A. Parasuraman" 1 => "V. Zeithaml" 2 => "L. Berry" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Retail" "fecha" => "1988" "volumen" => "64" "paginaInicial" => "12" "paginaFinal" => "40" ] ] ] ] ] ] 10 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0055" "etiqueta" => "11" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "R.L. Oliver" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Mark Res" "fecha" => "1980" "volumen" => "17" "paginaInicial" => "460" "paginaFinal" => "469" ] ] ] ] ] ] 11 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0060" "etiqueta" => "12" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "A service quality model and its marketing implications" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => "C. Grönroos" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "Eur J Mark" "fecha" => "1984" "volumen" => "18" "paginaInicial" => "6" "paginaFinal" => "44" ] ] ] ] ] ] 12 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0065" "etiqueta" => "13" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "An empirical assessment of the SERVQUAL scale" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "E. Babakus" 1 => "G.W. Boller" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Bus Res" "fecha" => "1992" "volumen" => "24" "paginaInicial" => "253" "paginaFinal" => "268" ] ] ] ] ] ] 13 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0070" "etiqueta" => "14" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Measuring service quality: a re-examination and extension" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "J.J. Cronin" 1 => "S. Taylor" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "J Mark" "fecha" => "1992" "volumen" => "56" "paginaInicial" => "55" "paginaFinal" => "68" ] ] ] ] ] ] 14 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0075" "etiqueta" => "15" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Expectations as determinants of patient satisfaction: concepts, theory and evidence" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:2 [ 0 => "A.G. Thompson" 1 => "R. Suñol" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Int J Qual Health Care" "fecha" => "1995" "volumen" => "7" "paginaInicial" => "127" "paginaFinal" => "141" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7655809" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] 15 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0080" "etiqueta" => "16" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "SERVQHOS, un cuestionario para evaluar la calidad percibida" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:6 [ 0 => "J.J. Mira" 1 => "J. Aranaz" 2 => "J. Rodríguez-Marín" 3 => "J.A. Buil" 4 => "M. Castell" 5 => "J. Vitaller" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:1 [ "Revista" => array:5 [ "tituloSerie" => "Med Prev" "fecha" => "1998" "volumen" => "4" "paginaInicial" => "12" "paginaFinal" => "18" ] ] ] ] ] ] 16 => array:3 [ "identificador" => "bib0085" "etiqueta" => "17" "referencia" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "contribucion" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Patients’ and personnel's perceptions of service quality and patient satisfaction in nuclear medicine" "autores" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "etal" => false "autores" => array:5 [ 0 => "S. de Man" 1 => "P. Gemmel" 2 => "P. Vlerick" 3 => "P. Van Rijk" 4 => "R. Dierckx" ] ] ] ] ] "host" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "doi" => "10.1007/s00259-002-0869-3" "Revista" => array:6 [ "tituloSerie" => "Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging" "fecha" => "2002" "volumen" => "29" "paginaInicial" => "1109" "paginaFinal" => "1117" "link" => array:1 [ 0 => array:2 [ "url" => "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12192553" "web" => "Medline" ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" "url" => "/22538089/0000003300000002/v1_201403190010/S2253808913001444/v1_201403190010/en/main.assets" "Apartado" => array:4 [ "identificador" => "7926" "tipo" => "SECCION" "en" => array:2 [ "titulo" => "Original articles" "idiomaDefecto" => true ] "idiomaDefecto" => "en" ] "PDF" => "https://static.elsevier.es/multimedia/22538089/0000003300000002/v1_201403190010/S2253808913001444/v1_201403190010/en/main.pdf?idApp=UINPBA00004N&text.app=https://www.elsevier.es/" "EPUB" => "https://multimedia.elsevier.es/PublicationsMultimediaV1/item/epub/S2253808913001444?idApp=UINPBA00004N" ]
Journal Information
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Original Article
Personalizing the reference level: Gold standard to evaluate the quality of service perceived
Personalización del nivel de referencia: patrón oro para evaluar la calidad de servicio percibida
a Investigación y Gestión del Conocimiento, Departamento de Salud del Gobierno de Navarra, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (REDISSEC), Spain
b Servicio de Medicina Preventiva y Gestión de la Calidad, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
c Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain