MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100741719 · doi:10.22230/jripe.2013v3n1a95

Physician and Nurse Perspectives of an Interprofessional and Integrated Primary Care-Based Program for Seniors

2013· article· en· W2100741719 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ainsley Moore, Kalpana Nair, Christopher Patterson, Joy White, Shelly T. House, Amjed Kadhim-Saleh, John J. Riva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareMcMaster University
KeywordsNursingMultidisciplinary approachMedicineIntegrated careSustainabilityPrimary carePopulationFront lineHealth careFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In Canada, primary care practitioners provide the majority of care for elderly patients. Increasing volume and complexity of care compounded by a shortage of specialized geriatric services has lead to problems of fragmented, inefficient,and often ineffective service for this population. Integrated models that bridge primary and secondary care have emerged as a major theme in health reform to address such challenges for care of the elderly. Although primary care practitioners are important stakeholders necessary for successful uptake and sustainability of such integrated models, this perspective has been largely unexplored. Methods and Findings: We used a qualitative thematic approach to bring forward front-line perspectives of nurses and physicians who referred their patients to a newly developed integrated, multidisciplinary program for seniors that was introduced into their primary care clinic. Referrers experienced improved care processes, improved quality of care, as well as an enhanced experience when managing their elderly patients. Unclear assignment of roles and responsibilities created confusion for referring practitioners and their patients.Conclusions: Understanding benefits, limitations, and changes to front-line practitioner experience provides insight into important factors contributing to buy-in and sustainability of integrated programming for the elderly in this setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.500 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and EducationSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207