Achieving the Quadruple Aim. Evaluating the Impact of an Integrated Senior’s Care Model in Burlington Ontario.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In the quest to deliver comprehensive care that is both efficient and person-centric, integrated care models have emerged as a vital solution. These models amalgamate health and social care services ensuring that care is accessible, tailored, and sustainable. However, evaluating their effectiveness across the four domains of the quadruple aim framework remains a complex endeavor. In 209, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care unveiled the Ontario Health Teams (OHTs). This groundbreaking integrated care network model was designed to provide seamless, person-centered care throughout an individual's life span. Among the pioneering OHTs was the Burlington OHT, which prioritized integrated senior care models critical consideration given that seniors constitute 25% of Burlington's demographic. Approach: At the heart of these models is the Community Wellness Hub, a collaborative of health and social service entities dedicated to the well-being of seniors. Strategically situated within affordable housing buildings, the Hub extends its services to both residents and the local community. Its mission is to promote a healthy, active lifestyle among its members by preemptively addressing wellness needs and mitigating the risk of health emergencies that necessitate acute care. The Hub represents a confluence of healthcare, housing, and social care, involving 5 distinct organizations. The implementation of the Hub was complimented with a comprehensive evaluation plan that assesses the implementation, performance and impact of the hub. The impact of the Hub across the quadruple aim framework domains (value, person experience, health workforce experience and health outcomes) was assessed using a toolbox of acute and community care data, member and provider experience surveys and health and wellness self-reported measures. Results: The impact can be described as a 4% reduction in non-urgent Emergency Department visits among its members compared to a similar demographic in Ontario. This indicates that Hub members are effectively using the Emergency Department for only those conditions that cannot be managed within the community. Furthermore, the Hub's members experience fewer hospitalizations for conditions that are typically managed outside of hospitals, such as chronic diseases, and when they are hospitalized, their stays are shorter. Projecting these results to a larger scale, if the Hub were to serve 00,000 seniors in Ontario, it could potentially save the healthcare system approximately $89.72 million annually, based on current hospitalization costs for these conditions. The hub members reported positive experiences in the domains of person-centeredness, enhanced access, safety and connectedness. The hub providers described positive experiences with areas of collaboration and teamwork, enhanced access and navigation, and ease of decision-making. The hub members described improved self-reported health and wellness outcomes and longer tenancy length at the affordable housing units than non-members. Implications: Given the complexity of assessing the impact of complex integrated care interventions. The evaluation approach (methodology and tools) utilized to showcase the Hub impact can be used in similar interventions.
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 | 0,009 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».