Lessons Learned Through Two Phases of Developing and Implementing a Technology Supporting Integrated Care: Case Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND As health care becomes more fragmented, it is even more important to focus on the provision of integrated, coordinated care between health and social care systems. With the aging population, this coordination is even more vital. Information and communication technology (ICT) can support integrated care if the form of technology follows and supports functional integration. Health TAPESTRY (Teams Advancing Patient Experience: Strengthening Quality) is a program centered on the health of older adults, supported by volunteers, primary care teams, community engagement and connections, and an ICT known as the Health TAPESTRY application (TAP-App), a web-based application that supports volunteers in completing client surveys, volunteer coordinators in managing the volunteer program, and primary care teams in requesting and receiving information. OBJECTIVE This paper describes the development, evolution, and implementation of the TAP-App ICT to share the lessons learned. METHODS A case study was conducted with the TAP-App as the case and the perspectives of end users and stakeholders as the units of analysis. The data consisted of researchers’ perspectives on the TAP-App from their own experiences, as well as feedback from other stakeholders and end user groups. Data were collected through written retrospective reflection with the program manager, a specific interview with the technology lead, key emailed questions to the TAP-App developer, and viewpoints and feedback during paper drafting from other research team members. There were 2 iterations of Health TAPESTRY and the TAP-App and we focused on learnings from the second implementation (2018-2020) which was a pragmatic implementation scale-up trial using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework at 6 primary care sites across Ontario, Canada. RESULTS TAP-App (version 1.0), which was iteratively developed, was introduced as a tool to schedule volunteer and client visits and collect survey data using a tablet computer. TAP-App (version 2.0) was developed based on this initial experience and a desire for a program management tool that focused more on dual flow among users and provided better support for research. The themes of the lessons learned were as follows: iterative feedback is valuable; if ICT will be used for research, develop it with research in mind; prepare for challenges in the integration of ICT into the existing workflow; ask whether interoperability should be a goal; and know that technology cannot do it alone yet—the importance of human touch points. CONCLUSIONS Health TAPESTRY is human-centered. The TAP-App does not replace these elements but rather helps enable them. Despite this shift in supporting integrated care, barriers remained to the uptake of the TAP-App that would have allowed a full flow of information between health and social settings in supporting patient care. This indicates the need for an ongoing focus on the human use of ICT in similar programs.
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 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,013 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».