Guiding Principles for Data Architecture to Support the Pathways Community HUB Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: The Pathways Community HUB Model provides a unique strategy to effectively supplement health care services with social services needed to overcome barriers for those most at risk of poor health outcomes. Pathways are standardized measurement tools used to define and track health and social issues from identification through to a measurable completion point. The HUB use Pathways to coordinate agencies and service providers in the community to eliminate the inefficiencies and duplication that exist among them. PATHWAYS COMMUNITY HUB MODEL AND FORMALIZATION: Experience with the Model has brought out the need for better information technology solutions to support implementation of the Pathways themselves through decision-support tools for care coordinators and other users to track activities and outcomes, and to facilitate reporting. Here we provide a basis for discussing recommendations for such a data infrastructure by developing a conceptual model that formalizes the Pathway concept underlying current implementations. REQUIREMENTS FOR DATA ARCHITECTURE TO SUPPORT THE PATHWAYS COMMUNITY HUB MODEL: The main contribution is a set of core recommendations as a framework for developing and implementing a data architecture to support implementation of the Pathways Community HUB Model. The objective is to present a tool for communities interested in adopting the Model to learn from and to adapt in their own development and implementation efforts. PROBLEMS WITH QUALITY OF DATA EXTRACTED FROM THE CHAP DATABASE: Experience with the Community Health Access Project (CHAP) data base system (the core implementation of the Model) has identified several issues and remedies that have been developed to address these issues. Based on analysis of issues and remedies, we present several key features for a data architecture meeting the just mentioned recommendations. IMPLEMENTATION OF FEATURES: Presentation of features is followed by a practical guide to their implementation allowing an organization to consider either tailoring off-the-shelf generic systems to meet the requirements or offerings that are specialized for community-based care coordination. DISCUSSION: Looking to future extensions, we discuss the utility and prospects for an ontology to include care coordination in the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) of the National Library of Medicine and other existing medical and nursing taxonomies. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pathways structures are an important principle, not only for organizing the care coordination activities, but also for structuring the data stored in electronic form in the conduct of such care. We showed how the proposed architecture encourages design of effective decision support systems for coordinated care and suggested how interested organizations can set about acquiring such systems. Although the presentation focuses on the Pathways Community HUB Model, the principles for data architecture are stated in generic form and are applicable to any health information system for improving care coordination services and population health.
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 | 0,069 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,023 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,005 |
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 ».