Evaluating the Implementation of Ontario’s Organ and Tissue Donation Physician Leadership Model: Mapping a Way Forward
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aimee Sarti,1 Stephanie Sutherland,1 Angele Landriault,2 Sonny Dhanani,3 Andrew Healey,4 Pierre Cardinal1 1Department of Critical Care, Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON, Canada; 2Practice and Performance Unit, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC), Ottawa, ON, Canada; 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Ottawa, ON, Canada; 4Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Aimee Sarti Email asarti@toh.caBackground: The demand for solid organ transplantation has spurred countries around the world to search for innovative policies and practices to increase the supply of organs. Spain has become a global reference point for organ donation with the highest transplantation rates. In Ontario, Canada the Ontario Trillium Gift of Life (TGLN) has sought to replicate some of the successes in Spain. In particular, TGLN’s implementation of the Physician Leadership Model has been viewed as a promising strategy to improve donation conversion rates.Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of TGLNs (TGLN) Physician Leadership Model by examining critical implementation process variables (education/training, communication, satisfaction, participation and reach).Methods: This mixed-method implementation evaluation included data from all members of the Physician Leadership Model including the Chief Medical Officer, five Regional Medical Leads (RMLs), and the 52 Hospital Donation Physicians (HDPs). Social Network Analysis (SNA) surveys were sent to all 52 HDPs and yielded an 85% rate. Analysis included constructing sociograms and qualitatively analyzing interviews.Results: TGLN’s PLM was poised for success by utilizing the existing RMLs’ network as a foundation. The social network analysis measures, particularly participation and reach, indicated the PLM was quite dense (ie, the degree to which members are connected) at baseline. HDPs reported communication to be facilitated by their connections to their RMLs. Early evaluative data indicated that lack of education and training was viewed by HDPs as a barrier, and thus more capacity would need to be directed to this issue. Overall, HDPs reported that various intended outcomes were being met.Conclusion: We have demonstrated that an implementation evaluation helps us to understand which elements of the PLM were successful and which elements required immediate attention. This evaluation helped to highlight the successes and challenges in implementing the TGLN Physician Leadership Model in Ontario. Social network analysis of publicly funded capacity building systems has been identified as a promising area for health program evaluation to answer questions at a system level, such as identifying service provisions among information exchange networks and ultimately better health care.Keywords: implementation evaluation, organ and tissue donation, social network mapping, leadership
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 | 0,028 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».