Abstract 3640: From Data to Action: Improving Knowledge Translation through Ontario's Stroke Report Cards
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The Ontario Stroke Evaluation Program has been reporting on the quality of stroke care since 2005. This information has been used inconsistently by stakeholders outside the stroke system. Consultation with stakeholders revealed that a concise reporting tool was needed. In 2009, the Stroke Evaluation Quality Committee (SEQC) developed a one-page report card to communicate the performance of stroke care in Ontario regionally and provincially. Method: Through a series of internal reviews, and utilizing the Canadian Stroke Strategy 2008 Performance Measurement Manual, the SEQC selected 20 key performance indicators to be presented in the report card. The primary data sources for indicator calculation were the FY 2008/09 Ontario Stroke Audit and FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 Canadian Institute for Health Information acute and inpatient rehabilitation databases. Indicator benchmarks were calculated using the Achievable Benchmarks of Care methodology. Red, green and yellow colour bands were used to rate regional performance relative to the benchmark, red representing poor performance (below the fiftieth percentile), green indicating exemplary performance (within 5% of the benchmark), and yellow representing acceptable performance (at or above the fiftieth percentile but outside of 5% of the benchmark). Stroke directors distributed the report cards to their regional management teams. Feedback about the report card was collected through a focus group with the stroke directors, who provided their own opinions and shared feedback they had received from management teams. Thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data. Results: Among the fourteen regions, eleven had 1 - 4 indicators exhibiting exemplary performance with minimal indicator overlap (4/11 shared the same indicator). Thematic analysis of focus group data revealed four main themes: 1) Process (strategy of dissemination), 2) Content (information and layout), 3) Utility (function) and 4) Results (management’s responses). Feedback indicated that the report cards were a valuable tool for planning and were helpful in facilitating communication between stroke directors and regional management teams. Stakeholders were satisfied with the content and process of the report cards as well as the potential they have for driving system change. Recommendations for future iterations of the report card, such as the timing of distribution, were also identified for process improvement purposes. Conclusions: The report card is a concise document that serves as a valuable stakeholder communication tool, allowing for consistent planning across the Ontario Stroke System (OSS). The report card and dissemination process has effectively engaged the Ontario stroke regions in dialogue relating to stroke system improvement.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,177 | 0,363 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,008 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».