Development of a Computerized Integrated-Care-Pathway System to Support People-Centred and Integrated Care: Usefulness of the Participatory Design Method
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Integrated service networks (ISNs) have gradually been established for older people in the province of Quebec, Canada. Despite many improvements in the organization of our health-care system, some gaps associated with assessing, planning, and delivering health care and social services reflecting the client’s values and preferences have been underlined. To resolve this situation, we have conducted significant research that allowed the development of the content of Integrated Care Pathways (ICPs) specifically designed to meet the needs of frail and disabled older adults. ICPs constitute the core decision-support system providing guidance on appropriate actions for the specific clinical circumstances reflected by assessment and overview data. They are also linked to our existing instruments such as the Multiclientele Assessment Tool (OEMC; French acronym), including the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) and the Iso-SMAF profile classification system. These ICPs aim at promoting fair access for frail and disabled elders with similar needs, providing support and prevention services, operating with a person-centred vision, and promoting independence in daily life for older persons living in the community. Since 2012, thanks to collaboration with a local home-care-service organization in developing an electronic prototype, we have incorporated ICPs provincially into the clinical and management computerized (French acronym: RSIPA) solution of Quebec’s Ministry of Health and Social Services that supports the ISNs for the elderly population in our health- and social-services integrated centers. This presentation outlines the process and lessons learned from our experience to iteratively design an enhanced RSIPA solution based on ICPs.Method: Over three years, users comprised of the interdisciplinary research-team members and public-health stakeholders worked with the developers using a multistage participatory-design (PD) method to iteratively design and develop an enhanced computerized RSIPA solution based on ICPs. The PD incorporated Quality Function Deployment into Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). The process included focus groups; individual consultations with professionals from clinical settings; and regular, frequent meetings between the research team and the Ministry’s informatics staff. Each phase of the design and development built on the preceding one, requiring the research team to provide feedback on a series of models and prototypes. At each meeting, a decision log was used and a normative framework for the new solution drafted. The normative framework is a reference document that supports the entry of standardized data into a computerized solution as well as their use for informational purposes.Results: Results from this process include the following design specifications and modifications to the RSIPA solution. ICPs are organized according to a dynamic process: (1) needs assessment and assessment of risk/protection factors with standardized data; (2) a synthesis providing a data-collection summary with alerts and supporting goal identification through a process of shared decision making; (3) planning of interventions from a client-centered view with an individualized offer of services out of a continuum of needs (prevention, empowerment, social participation, and compensation); (4) coordination, delivery, and follow-up of services that can be rapidly adjusted; and (5) identification of variances between what is proposed, expected, and completed within the offer of services related to each need, as well as the revision and adjustment of plans. Aggregating these data over needs and services and analyzing the variances in ICPs enable managers to better determine met and unmet needs in their populations; make informed choices in supporting a diversified offering adapted to these needs; offer a continuum of clinical information using certain performance indicators making it possible to monitor the performance and continuous improvement of practices; foster the complementarity of services; and enter into appropriate agreements with public, private, and community partners.Discussion: Computerization is a key component for successful ICP implementation. This system will streamline the collection of essential data in clinical settings while offering a way to control the source and quality of the data entered; facilitate the aggregation, viewing, and extraction of these data according to user needs; and, lastly, offer the possibility to merge this information with other databases or data sources. It will also facilitate the exchange of information and the clinical decision-making process. Once aggregated, the data will also support managers in organizing teamwork and follow-up for clients.Conclusion: The new Quebec RSIPA solution incorporating our ICPs is a promising example of technologies that support integrated-care delivery through better assessment, planning, organization, and monitoring.
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 | 0,028 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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.
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 ».