MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4413358381 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24016

An Information Sharing Framework: Supporting Collaborative and Integrated Service Delivery

2025· article· en· W4413358381 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
George A. Alvarez

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueKnowledge Management and Sharing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésService delivery frameworkKnowledge managementInformation sharingProcess managementService (business)Computer scienceBusinessWorld Wide Web

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background:The Information Sharing Framework enhances the degree of collaboration and integration among client-serving organizations providing mental health supports across all relevant sectors by providing guidance in navigating the complexities of privacy legislation; managing information appropriately; considerations in adapting policies and practices; and tools to use in collaborative service delivery. Approach:The identified issue was that information was not being shared as readily or effectively as it should be when organizations need to collaborate, thereby limiting and at times impeding the effectiveness of collaboration. In order to better understand the issue, a broad swath of organizations was invited to participate in the development of an enhanced service delivery approach, which ended up being the Framework. Input and participation were obtained from a wide variety of people serving organizations including non-profit agencies, associations (e.g. United Way), health organizations (e.g. PCNs), registrars from health profession colleges, school boards, police services, as well as provincial government, and privacy commissioner's staff, among others. Participants provided input as the Framework was developed, with inputs and comments assisting in shaping it as it evolved. The Framework is meant to address two main areas: the first being the fact that organizations in different sectors are subject to differing privacy legislation, which, by and large is neither harmonized, nor consistently interpreted, and in many jurisdictions not applicable to the non-profit sector. The second area has more to do with identifying areas for consideration that may be seen as more structural in nature, including governance, roles and responsibilities, policies and practices, and information management. The Framework provides support to organizations who wish or need to collaborate effectively when providing services to individuals and families. While it was developed in support of those delivering mental health supports and services, it can easily apply to any people-facing services in the health and social service sectors. Results:The outcome of the work is the development of the Information Sharing Framework, which provides fairly comprehensive guidance on what organizations wishing to develop or enhance their collaborative service delivery need to consider and implement. It also includes a number of resources and tools, that can support both individual agencies that are seeking to improve their information management policies and practices, as well as partnerships or groups of organizations that need to determine how they will work together more effectively, and how they will address onboarding of members.The Framework is being rolled out for use in Alberta, where it is in use by a number of groups and organizations, and is being offered for adaptation and adoption in other jurisdictions. Implications:The Framework addresses a number of areas that many jurisdictions are struggling with, and can be readily adapted for their use. The themes that are spoken to are broadly applicable, and focus on ensuring that organizations do not lose sight that privacy legislation was not meant to impede access by individuals and families to effective and necessary services delivered by organizations working collaboratively, creating the 'basket of supports' that are often alluded to. It sets out how to create that basket.Converge Mental Health Coalition has made the Framework materials available for use by hosting them on their website. In recognition that there will be a need to adapt it for use by jurisdictions other than Alberta, we are reaching out to various organizations in other jurisdictions to determine if there is interest in adapting and adopting the Framework for use by those jurisdictions. We are having a number of conversations with various organizations to that end.The package is available at Information Sharing Framework (Our Work - Converge (convergementalhealth.org)

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,639
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,644

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,333
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · 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 tête enseignante, 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
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated CareMême sujetKnowledge Management and SharingTravaux en français237 207