Community group practices in Canada: Are they ready to reform their practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Governments and healthcare organizations in Canada are reforming the clinical practice structures and policies to deliver primary care to the population. A key component of primary healthcare reform is the establishment of an interdisciplinary, community-based team approach to patient care. This study was undertaken to provide in-depth insight regarding primary healthcare providers' beliefs and attitudes in regard to their current group practice, what changes they believe are occurring and those necessary to reform group practice settings, their willingness to embrace changes, and the challenges they face to realize the proposed reform. METHODS: This study employed a mixed-method research design (qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques) through day-long focus groups of primary healthcare professionals (eg, family physicians, specialists, dieticians, psychologists) from across Canada. RESULTS: There is considerable variation in the composition of primary care group practices across Canada. Respondents report that group practices are little more than an economic convenience to facilitate sharing of resources. Even when a practice is composed of several disciplines, there is little to no organized or systematic interaction among healthcare professionals aimed at improving patient care, lack of clarity as to identified leaders/managers of the team, and inconsistencies in the model of care provided to patients. However, there is a perception of value and benefit in working in a cohesive group practice to improve patient care. DISCUSSION: Findings revealed that although healthcare providers report themselves ready to make the necessary changes and willing to move to interdisciplinary team-based practices, there are substantive challenges that impede a movement to truly effective interdisciplinary team practice and functioning. These challenges include the type and allocation of funding, interprofessional healthcare provider education, changing the healthcare provision model, and barriers among healthcare professionals regarding shared and equitable team accountability for patient health outcomes.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".