Understanding Coordination of Care from the Consumer's Perspective in a Regional Health System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand and develop a model about the meaning of coordination to consumers who experienced a transition from acute care to home care. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative, exploratory study using Grounded Theory. DATA SOURCES/ANALYSIS: Thirty-three consumers in the Calgary Regional Health Authority who had experienced the transition from an acute care hospital back into the community with home care support were interviewed. They were asked to describe their transition experience and what aspects of coordination were important to them. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using constant comparison. The coding and retrieval of information was facilitated by the computer software program Nud*ist. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The resulting model has four components: (1) the meaning of coordination to consumers; (2) aspects of health care system support that are important for coordination; (3) elements that prepared consumers to return home; and (4) the components of a successful transition experience. Consumers appeared to play a crucial role in spanning organizational boundaries by participating in the coordination of their own care. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers must be included in health care decisions as recipients of services and major players in the transition processes related to their care. Health care providers need to ensure that consumers are prepared to carry out their coordination role and managers need to foster a culture that values the consumer "voice" in organizational processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".