Advancing Collaborative Mental Health Care in Canada’s Primary Care Settings: A National Quality Framework with Recommended Measures
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Collaborative mental health care involves primary care providers and mental health specialists working together in structured ways to improve access to care, quality of care and outcomes. Collaborative mental health care is a proven approach to improve timely access to evidence-informed care, individual health outcomes, patient experience of care, equitable health care delivery and outcomes across populations, and cost-effectiveness of care. However, its implementation in Canadian primary care settings is variable and do not necessarily align with research evidence. This has led to a knowledge-to-practice gap regarding the comparative effectiveness of the different collaborative mental health care practices that teams and organizations may use to achieve desired outcomes. The Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) and its partners are pleased to share a pan-Canadian evidence-based framework for planning and measuring quality collaborative care. The report, “Advancing Collaborative Mental Health Care in Canada’s Primary Care Settings: A National Quality Framework with Recommended Measures” is the result of a two-year project led by the Quality Improvement for Collaborative Care (QI4CC) research team and is based on extensive consultations with providers, planners, and people with lived experience. A qualitative study was used to explore the current state of collaborative care across Canada and determine how to define and measure its quality and the project team engaged a multi-stakeholder group throughout the entire project to get feedback on the research process and findings and to refine and finalize the framework. The resulting revised Quality Improvement for Collaborative Care (QI4CC) framework was developed to assist stakeholders in organizing and delivering primary care mental health and addictions services. The framework is intended to help leaders in practice and policy put in place needed supports and structures to achieve successful implementation of good practices in collaborative care as well as recommending quality measures to prioritize when evaluating collaborative care initiatives in primary care practices. Learning Objectives: 1. Have a better understanding of collaborative mental health care in primary care settings 2. Provide an overview of the Quality Improvement for Collaborative Care framework and the key components in delivery of effective collaborative mental health care 3. Identify recommended measures to evaluate and improve the quality of collaborative care in primary health settings 4. Explore opportunities to apply the QI4CC framework for an international audience Target Audience: health-care providers – especially those involved in delivering mental health care in primary care settings, administrative leaders of health services, policymakers, and champions of collaborative care in mental health and addictions services (includes people with lived and living experience)
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».