If we need it, we build it - The journey of co-designing an integrated care record for a community-based integrated care model for seniors in Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The need for integrated care models that combine health and social care services within the communities where individuals reside is paramount to address people needs in an effective, person-centered, and sustainable way. A critical facilitator for such models is shared health records. Nonetheless, the realization of integrated health records continues to pose a considerable obstacle to the fruition of integrated care models. In 209, the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care in Ontario, Canada, unveiled Ontario Health Teams (OHTs) as a groundbreaking integrated care model designed to provide integrated, person-centered care to Ontarians throughout their life span. Presently, there are 58 OHTs in operation. The Burlington OHT was one of the initial OHTs to receive approval. Approach: The first model executed by the Burlington OHT was the Community Wellness Hub (CWH) - an integrated care model for seniors, orchestrated by a coalition of health and social service providers collaborating as a unified team to coordinate and administer services to vulnerable seniors. The model commenced as a pilot in a single building in 209, expanded to a second in 2023, and a third in 2024. In 2022, the model was evaluated. One of the key recommendations was the establishment of a shared digital platform to enable Hub staff to effortlessly and securely access and disseminate information regarding a client care plan, status, care team, and appointments. Prior to the evaluation, providers depended on secure methods of client information exchange, such as verbal communication, fax, emails, and during their monthly rounds, as a common care record was not in use. This practice was identified by the evaluation as unsustainable and a factor contributing to diminished provider and client experience. In early 2023, a working group comprising leaders, experts, and prospective users was assembled to co-design the specifications of an integrated care record, drawing from workflows and use cases. A request for proposal was initiated, and a vendor was selected based on predetermined criteria. The working group engaged in regular meetings with the vendor to customize the digital solution to meet user needs. Results: The CWH integrated care record was designed and is distinguished by three primary features: a) prompt communication among providers via secure messaging and notification capabilities, b) minimized redundancy through the consolidation of all health and social care assessments within one online platform accessible to the care circle, and c) a dynamic care plan document accessible to all providers, thereby obviating the necessity for clients to reiterate their needs, preferences, and care goals upon the initiation of new services or when engaging with new providers. The Integrated Care Record is currently in the implementation and testing phase. A data sharing agreement has also been crafted to support the implementation. Implications: The design and execution of integrated health records that traverse the boundaries of various health and social sectors remains a formidable challenge that impedes the successful implementation of integrated care models. The exposition of our methodology in designing and implementing an integrated care record for an integrated care model for seniors holds significant promise in guiding policymakers, planners, funders, and implementers in strategizing and executing integrated health records within the framework of integrated care models.
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 | 0,020 | 0,022 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,029 | 0,012 |
| Communication savante | 0,017 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
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 ».