Strategies for the implementation of Goal Oriented Care through the lens of Valentijn’s Rainbowmodel for integrated care.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Short: With the use of the Rainbowmodel of Valentijn as a guide you will discover how to develop an integrated implementation strategy for goal oriented care across the system as a catalyst for person centered system integration. Why: Health systems are in constant transformation to optimize integrated care delivery for patients with complex needs. One of the suggested strategies for person centered integrated care delivery (PC-IC) is an explicit focus on patients’ personal goals throughout care delivery. This should reorient the focus on disease oriented quality indicators to outcomes that matter to people. To get this focus on patients goals implemented throughout the system, actions in practice, research, and policy are required. An approach that highlights the importance of explicitly starting from the patients' personal goals is goal oriented care (GOC). When we look at the implementation of GOC through the lens of Valentijn's rainbow model we can identify different strategies for sustainable and integrated implementation of this person centered approach. Audience: Everyone with interest in person-centered integrated care and/or goal-oriented care and anyone on how this approach can be supported and adopted throughout the system. Structure Introduction 20’ Group work 35’ Plenary discussion 25’ Wrap up and key messages 15’ How to engage The workshop will start with a short introduction on why GOC could serve as a catalyst for person-centered system integration. Consequently the speakers will walk the group through the different levels (arcs) of Valentijn's model for integrated care showing examples of how different GOC projects in research, practice, teaching and policy are conducted at the different levels and how they focus on functional and/or normative integration. Next, the group will be divided in small groups who each will focus on a separate arc from the rainbow model (the citizen/patient/informal caregivers level, the providers/clinical level, the interprofessional team level, the organizational level and the policy level) A moderator will facilitate a group discussion about how GOC could be supported at that specific level and how. The rainbow model will act as a visual aid and will be used as a surface for post-it notes, to further facilitate interaction. After the brainstorm in small groups, the ideas from the different arcs will be reported back in a plenary discussion. The discussion will serve as inspiration to help participants think about how they can support the implementation of GOC (or other concepts) starting from their individual context and position & to see how initiatives at different levels also mutually reinforce each other. How are you going to summarize the take home messages? Following the group discussion, four junior GOC researchers will report on the lessons they have learned throughout the workshop, using the rainbow model as a guide. They will reflect on how the group discussions resonate with their own research and how the group’s reflection created perspectives for future research and implementation work both at the local and at the international level.
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 | 0,033 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,047 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,020 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,019 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,018 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
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 ».