The primary care COVID-19 integrated pathway: A quantitative study of rapid response to health and social impacts of COVID-19
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Context: The first wave of COVID-19 in Calgary, Alberta health zone accelerated Primary Care (PC) integration. Specifically, it connected Family Physicians (FPs) with their counterparts in the broader health system to deliver wraparound patient care through a COVID-19 Integrated Pathway (CIP). A key element of the CIP included a data sharing platform that facilitated the provision of test results directly to the FP identified by patients. Public Health provided test results for all patients to the primary care system so they could be followed up by primary care to improve their outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the CIP by describing its function and capacity to facilitate FP follow-up with COVID positive patients; and to inform refinement of the CIP for future use. Study Design: This abstract reports on the quantitative arm of a mixed methods study. Setting/Dataset: The Calgary Health Zone. Primary data were drawn from the Calgary COVID-19 Care Clinic (C4), a designated hub clinic for COVID-19 patients. Secondary data were drawn from provincially maintained records of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and FP claims. Participants: FPs and COVID-19 patients. Intervention: The data platform and PC attachment elements of the CIP. Outcome Measures: The characteristics of patients cared for via the CIP (age, sex, ethnicity, and risk-level); the proportion of patients without a FP who were attached to an FP; the number of patients followed by their FP in the community, and the number of specialist consultations made by FPs to support care, time from diagnosis to follow-up with PC/FP; ED and acute care utilization. Results: Between Apr. 16 and Sep. 27, 2020, 7706 patients were referred by the Public Health team to the C4 clinic. Of those, 51.4% were male, the median age was 36 y., and 86 deaths were reported. The majority of patients were referred to local PC networks where follow-up was conducted using the CIP: 3223 (43%) already had their own FP, 2448 (32%) were successfully attached to an FP, and 1899 (25%) of these patients were monitored by C4 physicians - these patients either did not have FP or their FP was not available to follow the patient. 8.6% of these patients visited ED and 3.1% were hospitalized. More than 80% of these patients had at least of 5 visits with their FP. Conclusion: Data suggest that the CIP facilitated primary care based management of patients with COVID-19.
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 | 0,016 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| 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 ».