Incorporating operations research techniques to evaluate information systems impact on healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the past 4 years, the Hospice Palliative Care Network Project, co-led by the Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care, Mount Sinai Hospital, and the Toronto Community Care Access Centre, has been working toward developing an innovative model of home palliative care coordination and service delivery. After a successful completion of stage one involving data collection of approximately 400 variables to a common Linux database repository, the current stage of the Project is to compare various modes of care delivery and disseminate the results to internal and external evaluation stakeholders. The Temmy Latner Centre's customized Panacea Information Management System (PIMS) had been linked to the Linux repository in order to customize reports to determine the optimal model of coordination and service delivery that could serve as a template for home palliative care delivery in Ontario. The objective of this paper is to outline the development and functionality of the PIMS and to evaluate its contribution in terms of improved data quality and health outcomes; in other words, to justify the information systems investment by demonstrating the relationship between this investment and improved health system delivery and effectiveness.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".