ABI and Addiction/Mental Health Collaborative
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BackgroundSoutheastern Ontario (SEO) is a large, predominantly rural area with an incidence of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (excluding concussion) over the most recent 6 fiscal years of 920: 11.3% had a mental health diagnosis at the time of the TBI. An implementation survey relating to a Guideline for rehabilitation of adults with moderate-to-severe TBI released in 2016, indicated that two high priority best practice recommendations relating to collaboration and continuity of care in TBI and mental health and/or addiction issues, were not fully implemented in this region.InterventionA 20-member, multi-sector (rehabilitation, mental health, addictions, corrections and womenu2019s shelter) and lived experience working group met over several months to develop a mechanism for addressing the complex, unmet needs of adults in this region with moderate-to-severe ABI complicated by mental health/addiction issues. The working group developed the referral process, inclusion and exclusion criteria, consent process and forms, discussion format, and performance indicators. It was decided to develop a Collaborative in each of 3 sub-areas and this Collaborative has been piloted in one of the sub-areas with data collection relating to process, outcome and sustainability. OutcomesThe Collaborativeu2019s purpose is to develop capacity to address complex, unmet needs using a shared-care model incorporating discussion about sequential/concurrent care. The SEO ABI System Navigator coordinates monthly u201crounds,u201d with 7 Collaborative members, including Physiatry, Psychiatry, Addictions Medicine, and community service providers, to address unmet needs of people meeting specified criteria including presence of a high-risk situation defined as u201cindividuals or families facing a number of risk factors that affect multiple areas and in all likelihood will lead to something bad happening, and happening soon.u201d The discussion was to review only those clients who give consent and to monitor the number of clients who do not consent. Baseline data was gathered over an 8-week period. Providers identified 30 people meeting the inclusion criteria: 80% male; 53% urban, 17% rural, 17% incarcerated; 67% required supported accommodation, 37% required psychosocial intervention, 30% required addiction service; barriers to care through usual means were client refusal (50%), no psychiatrist (23%), and long waiting lists (23%).The SEO ABI System Navigator is tracking performance indicators related to volume of referrals and unmet needs, referral timeframes, percentage of needs met, barriers to meeting needs, and use of healthcare system and patient flow in SEO. Benefits of the Collaborative include:u2022tEnhanced provider understanding of services, mandates, roles, and admission criteria u2022tEnhanced collaboration amongst service providersu2022tEnhanced understanding of how best to identify and work with people with ABIu2022tBetter communication amongst service providers about how best to meet the needs of people with ABIu2022tImproved continuity and efficiency of care
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,013 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,060 | 0,197 |
| Science ouverte | 0,023 | 0,041 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».