MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Measuring key integration outcomes

2007· article· en· W1986849246 on OpenAlexaffabout
Esther Suter, Melissa Hyman, Nelly D. Oelke

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsService delivery frameworkProcess managementIntegrated careHealth careBusinessService (business)Knowledge managementNursingMedicineComputer scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health care reform, through innovative health delivery systems, has been a high priority to address staff shortages, increasingly complex care needs of the aging population, and fragmentation of care. Community health centers have been promoted as one service delivery model with large potential for integration and collaboration. The South Calgary Health Centre (SCHC) opened in June 2004 with the mandate to provide a new model for accessible, accountable, integrated, and community-based health services. PURPOSE: The primary objective was to determine the performance of the SCHC; and further, to establish the value of the evaluation framework used in measuring organizational performance of an integrated service delivery model. METHODOLOGY: Multiple stakeholders were involved in the evaluation in a utilization-focused, participatory way. A comprehensive evaluation framework was developed and implemented to assess the performance of the SCHC at system, provider, and patient levels. Functional, clinical, and community integration were key systems outcomes within this framework. Case-study methodology with mixed methods drawing on multiple data sources (both qualitative and quantitative) was used. FINDINGS: The evaluation findings suggest that the center is functioning well and that staff and client satisfaction are high. Although the model has not achieved all that was originally intended (i.e., fully realized clinical integration), participants felt that the model has been successful and has great potential for integration. The comprehensive evaluation framework developed for this project proved useful in assessing different aspects of integration as well as provider and client perceptions of the center's performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Evaluation findings and recommendations have been used to inform operations at the SCHC and for the planning of future health centers. The evaluation framework may help to standardize evaluation approaches across projects and can be used for monitoring progress of the SCHC as well as future evaluations of integrated service delivery models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.420 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207