Family Physicians and Home Care Agencies - Valuing Each Other's Roles in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this era of primary-care reform, family physicians are being encouraged to work in teams with allied health professionals and community resources, including home care services, to ensure optimum care is provided to their patients. OBJECTIVE: To learn about the experiences of physicians working with home care services as provided by the Toronto Community Care Access Centre. METHODS: In early 2001, the Toronto Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) hosted focus groups designed to understand physicians' knowledge of and experiences with the home care services provided by our organization. Data analysis was conducted using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: (1) family physicians have a limited understanding of home care services; (2) family physicians felt there were inconsistencies related to service provision by CCAC staff; and (3) family physicians felt that their role may not be valued when caring for mutual clients with CCACs. OUTCOMES: Better educational interventions informing physicians on CCAC services and improved organizational practices by CCACs may aid in improving the connection between family physicians and CCACs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".