Navigating digital health solutions across organizations in the context of care transitions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Integrated care solutions often require the use of digital tools to support information sharing, communication, collaboration, and patient engagement. Implementing digital tools at different organizations and settings require thoughtfully considering how novel tools may interact with existing technology and workflows. Using a multi-site digitally enabled care transition intervention as a case example, we present an approach of how to navigate this complexity by understanding local priorities and contexts, and aligning to shared values. Approach: The Digital Bridge project (,2) aims to co-design, implement, and evaluate a multi-site digitally enabled care transition intervention from hospital to home for older adults with complex care needs. We co-designed an intervention that would bridge communication gaps between patients and clinicians, between hospital and community clinicians, and to promote patient engagement through goal-oriented care processes. The co-design working groups included people with lived experiences and hospital and primary care clinicians. The intervention targets the Acute Medicine and Rehab units at two large distinct healthcare organizations in the Greater Toronto Area with different electronic health record (EHR) systems and technology environments. We formed implementation teams at each organization comprised of administrators, clinical leaders (with primary care representation), and technology leaders. The research and local implementation teams collaborated on how to operationalize the core functionalities surfaced through the co-design process using the most appropriate technology in each organization context and environment. We gathered insights about local priorities and challenges at both the organizational and unit levels from clinical and technology perspectives by ) attending established committee meetings and 2) setting up strategic meetings with key partners. We then 3) aligned these insights with learnings from the co-design process. We 4) iteratively engaged with the implementation teams (including senior leaders) and co-design teams to ensure continued alignment between the co-designed solution, and local clinical and technical priorities. Results: This approach yielded significantly different implementation strategies at the two organizations. In one organization, after consideration of current gaps felt by clinical teams, historical context, and technology renewal plans, the co-designed intervention will be actualized by adopting a third-party vendor solution with limited integration with the organization EHR systems. In contrast, the other organization considered the on-going quality improvement effort in their model of care and the desire to improve adoption and optimal use of the existing EHR, the co-designed solution will be deployed leveraging advanced functionalities within the EHR system. Despite the different implementation strategies, both solutions will address the same challenges with functionalities surfaced during co-design with the appropriate technology and workflow in the local contexts. Implications: We demonstrated an approach of how to operationalize a technology-enabled care transition intervention differently at two organizations based on local contexts while preserving the delivery of core functionalities viewed as essential to the intervention. The evaluation phase of the Digital Bridge project will produce further insights into the effectiveness of the intervention and the tailored implementation strategies. Having an adaptive approach to technology implementation may advance the scaling of digital health interventions for integrated care across organizations and settings. References:. Steele Gray C, Tang T, Armas A, Backo-Shannon M, Harvey S, Kuluski K, Loganathan M, Nie JX, Petrie J, Ramsay T, Reid R, Thavorn K, Upshur R, Wodchis WP, Nelson M. Building a Digital Bridge to Support Patient-Centered Care Transitions From Hospital to Home for Older Adults With Complex Care Needs: Protocol for a Co-Design, Implementation, and Evaluation Study. JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Nov 25;9():e20220.2. http://www.digitalbridgetohome.com
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 | 0,021 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,016 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».