53 Implementation of a Developmental Outreach Clinic housed within a Family Health Team - preliminary findings in building a shared care model for children and youth with mental health and developmental disorders
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background At our inner city hospital, we developed a shared care model between family health teams (FHTs), pediatricians and developmental pediatricians to care for children with mental health and developmental disorders. In phase one of our study, 84 FHT members participated in focus groups to inform the development of our clinic. Family physicians described their role as “referral agent”, “long term supporter” and “healthcare coordinator”. They expressed the desire to “learn” and “do more”, but noted barriers to providing care, including limited training, lack of service knowledge, limited communication, and cumbersome access to mental health and dual diagnosis services. Phase One was completed and accepted for publication. Phase Two describes the implementation of our clinic using a mixed methods approach and report preliminary findings. Objectives To evaluate the first two years of implementation of the developmental clinic housed within a family health team (FHT) an obtain feedback from members of the shared care model. Design/Methods Mixed methods were used including chart review of all patients referred to the clinic and semi structured interviews with primary care physicians, pediatricians and developmental pediatricians regarding their roles in managing children with developmental and mental health disorders, as well as use and impact of the developmental clinic. Results A total of 115 charts were reviewed between Feb 2016 and Jan 2018. Of all patients seen, 34% were female 64% male and 2% transgender. Ages ranged from 1-17 years. Eighty-one percent had an existing diagnosis and were referred for re-assessment while 43% received a new diagnosis: ASD (72%), ADHD (11%), GDD (11%), learning disorder (3%), Anxiety (1%), Other (1%). There was an 8% no show rate. Providers endorsed improved communication through use of a shared EMR for documentation and messaging, and improved service knowledge through availability of a pediatric service navigator who also used EMR to document service and funding applications. Longer term follow up, namely the roles and responsibilities of pediatrics vs. developmental pediatrics vs. primary care remained unclear. Conclusion Implementation of the shared care model for this population with primary care is feasible, and does address some stated barriers to care, including improved communication, increased service knowledge, and provision of reassessments. Further areas to develop include clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the different healthcare providers of children with mental health and developmental disorders, and determining what is needed for long-term follow up and transitional care.
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 | 0,017 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».