Interprofessional primary care protocols: A strategy to promote an evidence-based approach to teamwork and the delivery of care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care reform involving interprofessional team-based care is a global phenomenon. In Ontario, Canada, 150 Family Health Teams (FHTs) have been approved in the past few years. The transition to a FHT is complex involving many changes and the processes for collaborative teamwork are not clearly delineated. To support the transition to team-based care in FHTs, a project was undertaken to develop and implement a series of interprofessional protocols in four clinical areas. These interprofessional protocols would contain relevant and evidence-based resources to support both a team and evidence-based approach to care. This paper reports on a qualitative study to examine the process of interprofessional protocol development and pilot implementation. Adopting an exploratory case study approach (Robson, 2002 ), 36 interviews were conducted with health professionals and community group members who participated in the creation and piloting of the protocols, and with project managers. In addition, observational and documentary data were gathered on the protocol development and implementation processes. The findings from the protocol development stage demonstrate the value of the focus on evidence and team, the process of assessing and targeting FHT needs, inter-organizational and interprofessional sharing, the importance of facilitation and support, and expectations for implementation. The findings from the pilot implementation stage report on the importance of champions and leaders, the implementation strategies used, FHT and organizational factors affecting implementation, and outcomes achieved. Findings are discussed in relation to the knowledge translation and interprofessional literature. Research is ongoing to examine the effectiveness of dissemination of the protocols to FHTs across the province of Ontario and its impact on health care outcomes.
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 | 0.374 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".