The individualized service plan as a clinical integration tool: qualitative analysis in the Quebec PRISMA experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One aspect of clinical integration involves case managers' tools and particularly the individualized service plan. METHODS: We examined individualized service plan content and use in the PRISMA experiment. We analyzed 50 charts, and conducted and recorded interviews regarding individualized service plan use with all the case managers concerned (n=13). RESULTS: Delays between starting case management and writing the individualized service plan were long and varied (0-596 days, mean: 117 days). During the interviews, the individualized service plan was described as the 'last step' once the active planning phase was over. The reasons for formulating plans were mainly administrative. From a clinical viewpoint, individualized service plans were used as memoranda and not to describe services (842 interventions not mentioned in the plans) or needs (694 active problems not mentioned). Case managers felt uncomfortable with the individualized planning task and expected a tool more adapted to their needs. CONCLUSION: Although a majority of the case managers' charts contained an individualized service plan, implementation of this tool seems tenuous. Because of the discrepancy between the potential usefulness expected by case managers and their actual use, a working committee was created to develop proposals for modifying the instrument.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".