Issues in quality of high‐tech home care: sources of information and staff training in Quebec primary care organizations and relationships with hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the provision of high‐tech home care by Quebec primary care organizations (CLSCs). Four technologies were selected: IV antibiotic therapy, oxygen therapy, parenteral nutrition, and peritoneal dialysis. A postal survey was sent to all CLSCs and a response rate of 69 percent was obtained; 57 percent of CLSCs have been involved in the provision of services related to three of the high‐tech interventions. The most frequently used sources of information are written material provided by manufacturers or by hospitals. CLSCs relied heavily on peer‐to‐peer training and training provided by manufacturers and hospitals. Formal agreements with hospitals regarding patient flow management were established; aspects related to the “content” of care were much less formalized. CLSCs have integrated high‐tech home care to a substantial extent. Our findings raise quality‐of‐care issues. The interface with hospitals needs to be reinforced and emphasis given to the appropriate use of technology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".