16 Assessing the requirements for a patient-facing virtual platform to enhance care coordination for children with medical complexity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Children with medical complexity (CMC) require specialized care from multiple health care providers across various settings; hospital, home and community. Communication and care coordination are essential to provide streamlined, accessible care. Currently a child’s executive medical summary, known as a care plan, is thought to be the gold standard in assisting with care coordination. However, there are many limitations regarding care plan use such as: lack of shared ownership, limited capability to update in real-time, and lack of universal access. Previous literature indicates that care plans should be cloud-based and comprehensive, allowing for more functions other than the executive medical summary alone. To determine the requirements and design features that are needed (e.g. care plans and care maps) in a cloud-based care coordination platform in order to best serve parents and health care providers (HCP) of CMC. 10 parents of CMC and 10 HCPs participated in phase one of a feasibility study aiming to design, test and implement a patient-facing care coordination platform. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and provided informed consent. Participants were shown screen-shots of the virtual platform, had the various functionalities explained to them verbally and were interviewed throughout the process about what they were shown and their likes/dislikes using an open ended semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim with data analysis occurring simultaneously. Data was coded individually by three members of the research team who then met to review emerging codes and came to consensus on codes and emerging themes. Parents of CMC were enthusiastic about the prospect of having a cloud-based care plan that they would be able to update in real-time. Most HCPs were weary of allowing parents the ability to make changes to the care plans, suggesting various mechanisms that would increase their comfort. Parents and HCPs also provided various suggestions regarding content that should be added to the platform such as: additional care plan sub-headings and symptom trackers. Parents and HCPs provided many ways in which the patient-facing virtual care platform could be improved prior to usability testing. Care plans continue to be viewed as a valuable tool and other novel concepts for care provision emerged.
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 | 0,019 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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 ».