MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965252314 · doi:10.1002/pon.1918

Cancer Care Ontario's experience with implementation of routine physical and psychological symptom distress screening

2011· article· en· W1965252314 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingWorkflowMedicineQuality managementDistressQuality (philosophy)CancerProcess managementNursingBusinessOperations managementPsychologyManagement systemComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: In late 2006, Cancer Care Ontario launched a quality improvement initiative to implement routine screening with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) for cancer patients seen in fourteen Regional Cancer Centres throughout the province. METHODS: A central team: created a provincial project plan and management and evaluation framework; developed common tools and provided expert coaching and guidance, provincial data analysis, progress reporting and program evaluation. Regional Steering Committees and Improvement teams were accountable for planning and coordination within each region and supported by a funded Regional Improvement Coordinator. A hybrid model for quality improvement facilitated process improvements and uptake of screening. RESULTS: Challenges to implementation included: lack of consensus on the chosen screening tool, lack of guidance for assessment or management of high scores, concern of inadequate time or resources to address issues identified by the screening, data entry was labour intensive, resistance to change and challenges to the traditional care model. Essential components for success were: centralized project management, a person dedicated to implementation of the project locally, clinical champions, clearly identified aims, monthly regional data reporting and implementation of quality improvement methodologies with expectations for performance. To achieve screening aims many centres engaged all members of the team, examined the roles of the different members and reorganized workflow and responsibilities and changed booking times. In March 2010, approximately 25,000 ESAS's were completed in the regional cancer centres across Ontario, with 60% of lung cancer patients and almost 40% of all other cancer patients who visited the Regional Cancer Centres screened. CONCLUSION: Routine physical and psychological distress screening is possible within regional cancer centres. Although considerable effort and investment is required, it is worthwhile as it helps create a culture that is more patient-centered.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.343 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it