Using patient feedback to improve integrated care through online platform - Care Opinion.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"Who is this networking session for? People interested in hearing about and discussing Care Opinion Canada, a platform that uses real time and transparent processes to support interaction between those receiving care in primary care or continuing care settings, and those providing it. Care Opinion Canada is being introduced initially in the province of Alberta by Imagine Citizens Network (ICN), led by volunteers who are working collaboratively with Care Opinion UK who developed the platform two decades ago. The goal is to give people a voice as well as improve the quality and integration of care. Who are you involving and engaging with? In addition to working with the originators of the Care Opinion platform in the UK, we are working closely with leaders in the primary care and continuing care sectors. This initiative in Alberta is directly the result of ICN introducing and championing the idea in the province. It has been supported by the Health Quality Council of Alberta, the Institute for Health Economics, the Primary Care Alliance and the Continuing Care Association.. This work to earn support and funding has been done by a small cadre of devoted volunteers within Imagine Citizens Network who over the past 3 years have met with several hundred individuals and organizations, participated in government-led consultations, and advocated for funding for Care Opinion.. What are we going to do? The platform is now online, undergoing beta testing in three adopter sites so we will show participants what it looks like and how it works. In 2024, implementation of Care Opinion in Alberta was made possible by funding from ICN, the Ministry of Health and Alberta Innovates. Working with the UK team and recently hired staff, we are adapting the application for novel sectors i.e. primary care and continuing care. What is the question you want to ask international colleague or problem you want their help to solve? Discussion in the session will be shaped by the interests of people in the room and their specific contexts and questions. Discussion points may include How can feedback from lived experiences of people as they seek health be embraced as part of a learning health system to support integrated care? What additional information would participants need they need in order to consider implementing this innovation (Care Opinion) in their own context?
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 | 0,034 | 0,110 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,019 | 0,004 |
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 ».