An Integrated Care Charter - Correcting the Organisational Focus Paradox by Empowering the Citizen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
An introduction: (comprising background and problem statement) Integrated care is in principle a ‘no contest’ goal – no-one can argue against it. Vertical integration seeks to link secondary care, primary care, and community care, while Horizontal integration seeks to link separate streams of clinical and related activity for persons with multiple conditions, drawing formal, family and societal care into a cohesive patient-focused pattern of care delivery and support. However, the real test of achievement is whether the patient feels care is integrated.Description of policy context and objective: Many organisations are focussing on addressing the organisational challenges, including the World Health Organisation’s WHO global strategy on people-centred and integrated health services, the WHO Regional Office for Europe with its programme Towards people-centred health systems: an innovative approach for better health systems International, the Foundation for Integrated Care’s activities, and the EU Project Integrate and its Conceptual Framework for Integrated care.These all focus on organisations, systems, and governance, which are clearly key determinants of care integration. But while these documents emphasise the importance of putting the patient at the centre (and also family and informal carers), they do not do this practically. There is something missing, and that is the provision of a person-centric definition of integrated care, and the person’s means of recognising and measuring it. Targeted population: Citizens for whom integrated care is appropriate; organisations seeking to deliver integrated care.Highlights: (innovation, Impact and outcomes) The Canadian Health Outcomes for Better Information and Care (C-HOBIC) project has to some degree started on this route by seeking to devise standardised measures of health and functioning of a person in a holistic sense, but this is still largely based on physiological assessment. Several studies have looked at system-based measures of integration, but the citizen is not directly involved. The Policy Innovation Research Institute (2014) devised a recipient-based survey tool. However, what is missing is a proactive tool. Citizen’s Charters and Customer Charters set standards by which the citizen could assess in lay terms whether a service met specified standards, in terms and measures meaningful to the lay citizen. Not least in the English NHS the Patient’s Charter has become an established concept. Such measures inform the citizen as to what they can reasonably expect, empower the citizen (or their advocates) to assess the quality of the service they are receiving, and provide a performance monitor for the organisation.In all the discussion and debate about organisational structures and processes, and changes to them to facilitate integrated care, it is paradoxical that there has been no focus on empowering citizens to identify, measure, or argue for integrated care, not least in their own personal situation.Comments on transferability: The concept is widely transferable, framed in local terms.Conclusions: (comprising key findings, discussion and lessons learned) The presentation will show how this might be achieved by producing the mirror image of organisational tools including those listed above, giving the patient expectations and a means of assessment.
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 | 0,039 | 0,049 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,031 |
| Communication savante | 0,022 | 0,031 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,017 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,013 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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 ».