86 Falling between the gaps, again, and again: the lack of coordination between health care and the child welfare system
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
About 7% of youth in Ontario will have child welfare involvement at some point in their life. (Fallon, 2011) Up to 60% of children will meet criteria for a mental health diagnosis, and upon transition out of care 30% will have unaddressed health care needs. Following coroner recommendations from inquests into the deaths of Katelynn Sampson and Jeffrey Baldwin, last year another twelve youth died while in the care of the child welfare system. The 2018 coroner’s report again concluded there was lack of information sharing between societies and healthcare providers. (Cromarty, 2018) It has been established that social determinants of health contribute to the unaddressed health needs of these youth. In contrast, modifiable system level factors that can improve the collaboration and coordination between the healthcare system and Children’s Aid Societies has not been extensively analyzed. To use a policy analytic framework to outline the linkages between the healthcare system and the Children’s Aid Societies (CAS)s with the purpose of identifying factors that increase coordination, collaboration and information sharing within the child welfare system, and between the child welfare system and the healthcare system in Ontario. This paper will explore policy developments and choices that influence the information sharing structures between the child welfare and health care system using the policy analysis “3-i” conceptual framework – an analysis of the role of interests, ideas, and institutions. Interests refers to agendas of societal groups, civil servants, researchers etc. Ideas refers to knowledge and beliefs including research. Institutions refers to formal and informal rules (legislation) and organizational factors. Although some of the issues presented in this paper intersect with those of Indigenous child wellbeing societies, the health needs for this overrepresented population in the child welfare system necessitates a distinct analysis, and are not included in this paper. Institutions: Children are admitted to one of 49 CASs in Ontario. On admission or transfer to any CAS, legislation requires physician physical examinations within 48 hours. In Ontario these are most often completed at walk-in-clinics without medical history. No mental health screening or plan for healthcare follow-up is mandated. The current legislation does not does not track child health outcomes and the current funding formula for CASs does not include healthcare. See Figure 1.Ideas: Despite access to healthcare children did not use healthcare if a need was not identified by their CAS worker, or if workers were not equipped with resources to navigate the healthcare system. (Stiffman, 2004) In Ontario, only 1/3 of children in the child welfare system who were self-harming or voiced suicidality were referred to a mental health professional by their worker. (Baiden, 2018) The gateway providers for healthcare for children in care are their CAS workers. Interests: The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) is one of the governing medical bodies with interest in providing the primary health care to children and youth in care. A joint position statement by the CPS and family physicians could set the standard of medical care for children in the welfare system. The Ontario Association of CASs (OACAS) has the potential to systematically report upon performance indicators and outcomes without attributing results to specific CASs thereby providing a form of liability protection. Adverse childhood events and social determinants of health contribute to the health of children in the child welfare system. However, this analysis has identified modifiable system level factors that need to be targeted or else health advocacy initiatives will not have their expected impact. Importantly, we have identified child health workers as the gateway providers for the health of children in care, implying that future advocacy initiatives should include workers as key collaborators.
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 | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».