Integrating Home Care: How Seven OHTs aim to Modernize Home Care, and the Barriers and Facilitators they Face in Implementing Change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Seven Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), each a group of cross-sectoral health service organizations collaborating to integrate care, were chosen to lead the modernization of home and community care. We explore the models key transformation ideas and report on the barriers and facilitators to implementation. The findings of this study will be of interest to people designing an implementing integrated care projects as well as evaluators and researchers who learn from and support these programs. The evaluation of the leading projects in-home care was flexible, engaging and interactive and undertaken in partnership with each project as well as system stakeholder. We aimed to support learning and development through our approach. While the central team was made up of researchers, we sought input from project staff and committees in the design and interpretation of findings.This research reports on the qualitative component of a mixed-methods evaluation of the seven projects. Data collection included document review, approximately in-depth -hour discussions about the model with each program, observations of meetings at different levels (monthly planning meetings at three selected OHTs and cross-OHT/ system-level meetings), monthly informal interviews with the seven OHT leads, in-depth interviews with three selected OHTs (n=24) and focus groups with remaining four OHTs. While preliminary meetings began in mid-2023, data collection started in earnest in November 2023 and ended in June 2024. Data were thematically analyzed, focusing on understanding key model components and drivers of change. Barriers and facilitators were sourced primarily through focus groups and interviews. In examining the key elements of the leading projects, four groups emerged, focusing on either neighbourhood, primary care connectivity, palliative care populations or supporting those in the community with high needs. Across OHTs, care change ideas included changing how clinical team members worked together, reconceptualizing the care coordinator role, and sharing information across the care team. Each model type additionally developed unique change strategies. The primary care model embedded care coordinators within primary care settings, while the neighbourhood model emphasized the benefits of salaried home care teams and co-location. These differences were informed by the need to address local issues of concern, build on strengths, and mitigate challenges. The projects had unique implementation challenges that stemmed from factors such as differing relationships among organizations or individuals, human resource challenges; as well as common challenges (shifting timelines). Facilitators included the history of collaboration and local resources and embedded the project into a broader OHT strategy. While the intervention and evaluation take place in Ontario, Canada, the findings will be of interest to those implementing or evaluating programs to improve home care integration in international settings.The findings presented here are part of a larger evaluation study. Additional qualitative data (interviews and focus groups) will be collected after program implementation. Patient and provider experiences, as well as health service utilization and outcome data, will be analyzed to provide a fulsome understanding of the model, what changes are implemented, and what the effects of the program are. Results are shared with project and systems stakeholders through ongoing evaluation reports.
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 | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».