“I wish I had known from start but somehow had to learn hard way”: reflections on their integrated care journey 
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: System-wide integrated care cases across the world have often been recognised as “groundbreaking”, “disruptive” or “pioneer”. We all have heard narratives of success, usually by inspirational leaders and told at the initial take-off phases of programmes. But we now little about the challenges faced by these innovators as time passes, leaders perhaps move on, new policy agendas come to compete with integrated care and expectations on the outcomes decline. The programme then rests on decisions makers who have to muddle through the challenges and eventually crises, aiming to advanced integrated health and care in their territories. Aim: Workshop will discuss the experience of decision makers from well-known international cases of system-wide integrated care that have been in place for a few years and have endured various challenges over their journey. Purpose will be to discuss informally the challenges of putting in place and implementing integrated care systems, and the efforts to muddle them through over the years. Four international cases will be discussed by decision-makers. At present, it can be confirmed the inclusion of Catalonia (Spain) and the Basque Country (Spain) and other two experiences are suggested now as a placeholder (one of the Well-being counties in Finland; one of the cases of the Body Corporate model in Scotland; examples from Australia; New Zealand; Canada; etc.) until they can be confirmed. Participants will engage with the following questions: oWhat would we have done differently? oHow much structure did we deploy over the years? oHow far have we moved towards changing relationships, power, involving people, etc? oWhich new governance arrangements and distribution of power has been redesigned? oHow much has the journey changed “whole system”? oHow much the journey has changed me as leader? Do we need a new updated “system leadership” orientation? oWhich main outcomes and measures are being used to monitor progress, from the patient/citizen, workforce and system perspective? oWhich digital transformation are you developing related to Integrated Care agenda? Who is it for? Representatives from other international organisations that have been on the integrated care journey. Representatives from organisations and policymakers from different countries and regions who have recently started or are about to start their own journey. What are you going to do? oIntroduction oRoundtable with different experiences (60 min): Short presentation of each panellist (12 min) Q&A (15 min) oOpen discussion with the audience (20 min) oConclusions (10 min) How are you going to engage with the audience? Special focus on policy and action to develop Integrated Care strategy both within health (vertical integration) and also between health and social care sector (horizontal integration) How are you going to summarize the take home messages? Special focus on practical lessons which could be feasible and scalated in other countries and regions related to Integrated and key core elements of new model of care, governance, outcome framework, finance and commissioning arrangements and integrated information systems to facilitate Integrated care in practice.
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 | 0,024 | 0,038 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,036 | 0,026 |
| Communication savante | 0,021 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,023 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,043 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,003 |
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 ».