MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4390957132 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic23482

The co-design and co-creation of an integrated geriatric care system: A case study from Ontario, Canada, in partnership with older adult patients and providers

2023· article· en· W4390957132 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Jacobi Elliott, Paul Stolee, Catherine Tong

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClinical practice guidelines implementation
Établissements canadiensSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of WaterlooLawson Health Research Institute
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntegrated careGeneral partnershipHealth careContext (archaeology)NursingProcess (computing)Focus groupAction (physics)Action researchMedicineProcess managementPsychologyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceMarketing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Integrated care has been heavily researched, but additional efforts are required to move knowledge of integrated care into action, ideally at a larger scale and in a more sustainable fashion. We need a stronger grasp of how integrated care models are implemented, and how they might be tailored to unique contexts. Within the context of complex health care interventions, it is relatively rare that researchers engage in evaluations of the process (Lewin et al., 2009); the focus tends to be the outcomes not the process (Moore et al., 2015). To support the implementation of sustained and tailored models of integrated care, we must endeavor to better capture the process in which change is enacted. This is particularly prudent in countries with aging societies, as health care integration is especially important for older adults, whose care needs cut across a range of systems, providers, and settings. Purpose: This work seeks to understand the knowledge to action (KTA) process in which knowledge is co-created within a co-design setting, and then implemented within a health region to improve integrated care for older adults. Here, we focus on the processes and results of the co-design approach with care providers and older adults. Older adult patient partners have been integrated in each step of this process. Methods: In this study, we have partnered with health care providers and older adult patients and caregivers in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, to document and evaluate efforts to co-design and implement an integrated model of care for frail older adults in two regions. We have worked with each region to understand and document their co-design process from late 2020 through to the present. Employing a qualitative multiple case study design, we have observed and documented virtual co-design sessions which occurred monthly, in two regions, and conducted individual interviews regarding the co-design process with older adult (n=4) and health care provider (n=9) working group members. Within these co-design sessions, we also facilitated the development and identification of goals for each region’s approach to integrating geriatric care. Qualitative data were analyzed using appropriate coding techniques. Results: Through observations and interviews with older adult and health care provider co-design working group members, a number of themes emerged. First, working group (WG) members identified that having an external facilitator leading the co-design sessions was a benefit. Co-design sessions needed to be flexible, informative, and productive to keep members engaged in the co-design work. WG members also identified a number of goals that needed to be achieved to indicate that co-designed improvements were made to the geriatric health system. Goals included, decrease referral duplication, improve patient and caregiver experience, improve provider collaboration, and decrease service wait time. Conclusion: This work has demonstrated practices and techniques for both creating and then tailoring an integrated care model for unique regions, including a novel application of the GAS guide as a tool to support co-design. These learnings may facilitate the future participation of older adults and their caregivers in improving health care, in Canada and elsewhere.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,110
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,797

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0390,009
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0030,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,048
Tête enseignante GPT0,397
Écart entre enseignants0,348 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Même sujetClinical practice guidelines implementation→Travaux en français237 207→