Developing collaborative person-centred practice: A pilot project on a palliative care unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximizing interprofessional collaborative patient-centred practice holds promise for improving patient care and creating satisfying work roles. In Canada's evolving health care system, there are demands for increased efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality improvement. Interprofessional collaboration warrants re-examination because maximizing interprofessional collaboration, especially nurse-physician collaboration, holds promise for improving patient care and creating satisfying work roles. A palliative care team seized the opportunity to pilot a different approach to patient and family care when faced with a reduction in medical staff. Grounded in a collaborative patient-centred practice approach, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association's National Model to Guide Hospice Palliative Care (2002), and outcomes from program retreats and workgroups, a collaborative person-centred model of care was developed for a 12-bed pilot project. Preliminary findings show that the pilot project team perceived some specific benefits in continuity of care and interprofessional collaboration, while the presence of the physician was reduced to an average of 3.82 hours on the pilot wing, compared with 8 hours on the non-pilot wings. This pilot study suggests that a person-centred model, when focused on the physician-nurse dyad, may offer improved efficiency, job satisfaction and continuity of care on a palliative care unit. Incorporating all team members and developing strategies to successfully expand the model across the whole unit are the next challenges. Further research into the impact of these changes on the health care professionals, management and patients and families is essential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".