A provider experience survey in integrated care. Closing out the quadruple aim
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Capturing the provider’s experience, delivering care and provider well-being has become a major focus of health system leaders and recognized as the fourth component of the Quadruple Aim. However, tools to measure the experience of provider care are limited, with few examples in integrated care. Existing measurement is both specific to provider types/professional groups or is narrowly focused on teamwork measures. Instruments are needed to assess interprofessional health care providers experience and well-being in the context of integrated care. We sought to develop and test a provider experience scale applicable across provider types and organizations engaged in integrated care models. Approach: A provider experience survey was developed through a three-phase approach. The first phase included a rapid literature review of provider experience surveys and research team consensus meetings to identify thematic areas and candidate items from existing survey tools. The second phase involved 4 focus groups with 16 providers including physicians, therapists, social workers, nurses and community health workers. The third phase was a field test of the survey in 3 health system interventions aimed to advance integrated care. The field test took place with providers in Ontario, Canada in the implementation of population-based integrated care models called Ontario Health Teams. Exploratory factor analysis was used to group items into domains and domain-specific factor scores and reliability was assessed. Results: A 39-item survey was fielded to 2145 respondents with an average 22% response rate and 472 returned surveys. Factor analysis resulted in 5 subscales: 1) care coordination; 2) workplace culture; 3) autonomy; 4) burnout/satisfaction; and 5) digital/virtual care. The internal consistency estimates of reliability of each subscale ranged from 0.72 to 0.94, and overall reliability was 0.82. Conclusions: This provider experience survey addresses gaps important for integrated care in that it was developed and validated with multiple professions and applied in the context of integrated care. Statistical results from an initial survey of 472 respondents in Ontario, Canada suggests strong internal consistency and reliability while engagement with providers in the development of the survey tool provides support for content validity. This tool is publicly available in French and English for integrated care programs to use to assess provider experience as essential outcome of integrated care initiatives. Further testing and refinement of the measure will strengthen the measurement of provider experience in quadruple aim evaluation of integrated care programs.
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 | 0,010 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».