Primary healthcare organizations facing a disaster: the Quebec experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose This paper seeks to evaluate the role and the nature of the interventions by primary healthcare organizations in Quebec during the ice storm of 1998. The two basic questions are: to what extent CLSC perform their socio‐community mission during this disaster? Are there some contingencies factors that explain variation between CLSC in their intervention? Design/methodology/approach Data collection is based on face to face discussion held with 19 managers responsible for the disaster's plan for their CLSC, 59 professionals that took an active and direct role in disaster interventions and 25 collaborators from municipalities and diverse community organisms. On top of the face to face discussions, a questionnaire was remitted to all the interviewees. Findings The research provides a qualified analysis of the interventions of the CLSCs and identifies what works well (performance factors), what went wrong (non performance factors) and what varies from one territory to another (variance or contingencies factors). The results of this research corroborate most of the reports brought about by the theories of disaster management planning to the look at the importance of plans, the development of a culture of prevention and of civil security, the importance of the training as much for the leaders as for the professionals. Moreover, primary healthcare organizations such as CLSC's in Quebec have a strategic positioning in disaster because of the multidisciplinary functioning of their teams and their knowledge of the local community. Research limitations/implications The research is limited to the interventions of CLSCs and the interventions of other professionals of the health system or from volunteers are not considered. Practical implications The social community mission of organizations such as the CLSC can be optimized using four specific plans: the clientele plan, the training plan, the local consultation plan and the multidisciplinary plan. Specific recommendations on each aspect are identified to help managers and professionals in the attainment of their socio‐communitarian mission. Originality/value The research provides interesting data on the contribution of multidisciplinary teams (nurses, doctors, social workers, psychologists, ergotherapists, etc.) as well as from their managers and first line collaborators. It puts in evidence their strengths and weaknesses and identifies ways of improving disaster interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».