Barriers and facilitators to improving health care for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities: what do staff tell us?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Highlights• We worked with three emergency depart ments and three primary care clinics across Ontario to implement evidence-based practices for high quality care of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.• While some sites made considerable progress, others were challenged to make sustainable improve ments.• More successful implementation occurred when sites had strong champions, an interest in this patient group and used electronic prompts and automated point of care tools to embed new practices.• Less successful sites were challenged by staff turnover, low morale and passive endorsement from leadership.• Given these challenges, system level supports are important for wider spread of this intervention.improved practice are the emergency department (ED) and primary care (PC) settings.Both serve as main entry points into the health care system, playing a critical role in providing early and accurate diagnosis, early intervention, and linking individuals to needed community supports.Prior research has shown that although adults with IDD have similar rates of PC AbstractIntroduction: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have high rates of morbidity and are less likely to receive preventive care.Emergency departments and primary care clinics are important entry points into the health care system.Improving care in these settings can lead to increased prevention activities, early disease identification, and ongoing management.We studied barriers and facilitators to improving the care of patients with IDD in three primary and three emergency care sites in Ontario.Methods: Data sources included structured implementation logs at each site, focus groups (n = 5) and interviews (n = 8).Barriers and facilitators were coded deductively based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).Synthesis to higher level themes was achieved through review and discussion by the research team.Focus was given to differences between higher and lower implementing sites.Results: All sites were challenged to prioritize care improvement for a small, complex population and varied levels of implementation were achieved.Having national guidelines, using local data to demonstrate need and sharing evidence on value were important engagement strategies.Factors present at higher implementing sites included strong champions, alignment with site mandate, and use of electronic prompts/reminders.Lower implementing sites showed more passive endorsement of the innovation and had lower capacity to implement. Conclusion:Providing effective care for small, complex groups, such as adults with IDD, is critical to improving long-term health outcomes but is challenging to achieve.At a systemic level, funding incentives, access to expertise and improved electronic record systems may enhance capacity.
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 | 0,018 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».