Improving the Quality of Care for Older Adults Using Evidence-Informed Clinical Care Pathways
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been an intensified focus on quality initiatives within health care. Clinical Networks have been established in Alberta as a structure to improve care within and across settings. One method used by Clinical Networks to improve care is clinical care pathways. The objective of this study was to evaluate an evidence-informed hip fracture acute care pathway before broad implementation. METHODS: The pathway was developed by a provincial Clinical Network and implemented at four of 14 hospitals across the province. Within four months of implementing the pathway, experienced interviewers conducted focus groups with end-users at the four sites. Domains of inquiry focused on indentifying barriers and facilitators to use of the pathway. RESULTS: Fifteen physicians and 29 other health-care providers participated in eight focus groups. Common themes identified around the pathway order sets included issues with format, workflow and workload, and dissemination. The patient/family educational materials were deemed to be beneficial. Health-care provider education required better support. Overall the pathway was seen to be comprehensive. However, communication about the pathway could have been improved. CONCLUSIONS: This care model is novel in that it combines the concepts of clinical networks, care pathways, and knowledge translation in an effort to provide high-quality, evidence-informed care in a standardized equitable manner across a diverse geographic area.
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.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it