Waiting for scheduled services in Canada: development of priority‐setting scoring systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: An Achilles' heel of Canadian Medicare is long waits for elective services. The Western Canada Waiting List (WCWL) project is a collaboration of 19 partner organizations committed to addressing this issue and influencing the way waiting lists are structured and managed. The focus of the WCWL project has been to develop and refine practical tools for prioritizing patients on scheduled waiting lists. METHODS: Scoring tools for priority setting were developed through extensive clinical input and highly iterative exchange by clinical panels constituted in five clinical areas: cataract surgery; general surgery procedures; hip and knee replacement; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning, and children's mental health. Several stages of empirical work were conducted to formulate and refine criteria and to assess and improve their reliability and validity. To assess the acceptability and usability of the priority-setting tools and to identify issues pertaining to implementation, key personnel in the seven regional health authorities (RHAs) participated in structured interviews. Public opinion focus groups were conducted in the seven western cities. RESULTS: Point-count scoring systems were constructed in each of the clinical areas. Participating clinicians confirmed that the tools offered face validity and that the scoring systems appeared practical for implementation and use in clinical settings. Reliability was strongest for the general surgery and hip and knee criteria, and weakest for the diagnostic MRI criteria. Public opinion focus groups endorsed wholeheartedly the application of point-count priority measures. Regional health authorities were generally supportive, though cautiously optimistic towards implementation. CONCLUSIONS: While the WCWL project has not 'solved' the problem of waiting lists and times, having a standardized, reliable means of assigning priority for services is an important step towards improved management in Canada and elsewhere.
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 | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".