Delivering on Social Accountability: Canada’s Northern Ontario School of Medicine
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Limited availability of cultural and linguistically appropriate services (e.g.Aboriginal, Francophones), which impacts access and outcomes Scarcity of resources (e.g.health human resources, infrastructures, technologies, etc.) and varied enablement of health professionals to work at the full scope of practice limit the capacity of the system to deliver care at an acceptable standard -although the Panel recognizes that many rural and northern practitioners practice to their full scope of practice, policy, infrastructure and other tools are needed to enable this more consistently in rural and northern areas Inconsistent implementation of potential interprofessional models across local communities, which are considered an important element of improved access to local health care (e.g.varied levels of investment in primary care models such as Family Health Teams across local communities) Availability of transportation (emergent, inter-facility and non-urgent) in some northern, remote and rural areas is limited Travel distance can make access to services difficult, and influences which services individuals seek. Lack of rural perspective applied in planning at the provincial or LHIN levels, and the need for increased flexibility at the local level to drive innovations related to scope of practice, funding and system integration A recognition that the health care access challenges and needs in rural communities differ between southern Ontario and northern Ontario, and that challenges are typically accentuated in the north The historic trend toward centralization in health system design, which limits local responsiveness and reduces access; need to create local capacity to focus on synergies across the continuum of care and sectors Inter-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional challenges and fragmentation of the funding, management and coordination of different components of the health system (e.g.emergency medical services, public health) Limited sharing of health records and information across professionals within the system Identifying Services that Improve AccessEqually important to identifying challenges is understanding the current programs and strategies already in place to improve access to rural, remote and northern Ontario.As part of the Panel's work, an inventory of current programs that the MOHLTC funds to address access issues in rural, remote and northern communities was established, which range in the types of services funded, including: disease-focused programs, health professional recruitment and retention, interprofessional care models, local community or population specific initiatives, travel grants and technology-enabled access solutions.While a specific review of these programs was not conducted by the Panel, there was general acceptance of the contribution that these provincial commitments have toward improving access in rural, remote and northern Ontario. Stage 1 Rural and Northern Health Care Framework/PlanBased on the inputs and insights gathered through its planning process, the Panel is proposing the following Stage 1 Framework/Plan, which outlines a vision, guiding principles, planning standards and decision guides, strategies and guidelines for the MOHLTC and LHINs. Stage 1 Rural and Northern Health Care Framework/Plan Guiding Principles
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 | 0,011 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,026 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,057 | 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 ».