MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2099233681 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v64i4.1033

Of Silos and Systems: The Issue of Regionalizing Health Care

2011· article· en· W2099233681 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Scot H. Simpson

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth careBusinessHRHISPopulationPublic healthAccountabilityCorporate governanceHealth policyCommunity healthPublic administrationPublic relationsPolitical scienceNursingMedicineEnvironmental healthFinance

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Regionalization refers to the creation of an intermediary administrative and governance structure (often referred to as a regional health authority or board) that assumes respon sibility for organizing and delivering health care services to a defined population. The formation of a regional health board shifts the responsibility for decisions about funding and allocating health care resources away from both individual organizations (for example, a community hospital board) and the provincial ministry of health. The main goals of regionalization are to help contain rising health care costs (through economies of scale), to improve responsiveness to and accountability for population health needs, and to increase public participation in health care decision-making. In essence, the responsibility for providing health care services moves away from the “silos” of fragmented, individual organizations (as just one example, before regionalization in Saskatchewan, the province had more than 400 individual health care organizations, such as acute care hospitals and community care groups) to a “system” of health care that is delivered in an integrated fashion by a single regional organization. Regionalization of health care delivery began in the late 1980s and early 1990s in all provinces except Ontario. These initiatives were undertaken in response to observations from a number of federal and provincial commissions, task forces, and public forums aimed at finding ways to improve the health care system. Each province has developed regional health boards that vary in number, scope of responsibilities, and membership. While some provinces have separate boards to oversee institutional and community services, most have regional health boards with a wide range of responsibilities, including medical clinics, health promotion and prevention, youth and family services, public health, cancer care, mental health, hospitals, and residential care programs. In most provinces, the members of regional health boards are appointed by the provincial minister of health. Although there are a number of recognized challenges associated with operating an effective regional health board, I will focus on just 4 of these. One fundamental challenge is the requirement to characterize the relative importance of a wide variety of health care needs within the region. Advocates believed that regionalization would create equity of allocation of health care services; however, with the closure of many small-town hospitals and an apparent shift in power to urban centres, some would argue against this belief. To help make appropriate and equitable decisions, regional health boards would ideally use a valid and dynamic funding formula. However, such formulas require a complex amount of individual-level data, which reflects the second challenge: although individual-level data enable us to identify and account for important factors influencing health care needs, it is often difficult to access highquality, reliable epidemiological data. Ironically, the human resources and infrastructure needed to effectively gather and interpret this information may in fact exacerbate the problem of higher health care expenditures. A third challenge to the operation of regional health boards is the fact that many boards have limited authority to control major expenditures, such as physician fees and drug costs, as well as limited authority to create policy. Without devolution of power from provincial ministries of health, regional boards become another layer of administration in the health care system. Finally, public representation on regional health boards may be one of the biggest challenges of all. Although having such representation reflects a noble intent, selection of public members can be difficult. For example, if only one member of the public is involved on a particular board, it is critical to demonstrate that the individual selected speaks for the needs of all residents within the region. Inclusion of a public member with a vested interest in a limited number of issues can be harmful not only to the internal decision-making process of the

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,050
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,977
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,265

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0500,064
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0040,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,108
Communication savante0,0250,048
Science ouverte0,0040,019
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,014
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,099
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations13
Publié2011
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacyMême sujetPrimary Care and Health OutcomesTravaux en français237 207