Developing Memory Clinics in Primary Care: An Evidence-Based Interprofessional Program of Continuing Professional Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Primary care is challenged to meet the needs of patients with dementia. A training program was developed to increase capacity for dementia care through the development of Family Health Team (FHT)-based interprofessional memory clinics. The interprofessional training program consisted of a 2-day workshop, 1-day observership, and 2-day mentorship program. METHODS: An online survey was completed by participants prior to the training workshop and a similar survey at least 6 months following completion of the program to measure perceived changes related to knowledge, ability, and confidence to assess and manage memory problems, and comfort in speaking to patients and caregivers about concerns regarding dementia. Participants also completed a paper-based reaction survey at the end of the workshop and observership day. RESULTS: Twenty-two FHTs, with 124 health professionals, participated in this program. At follow-up there were statistically significant increases in self-reported knowledge of and ability to assess and manage cognitive impairment, confidence, comfort level in speaking to patients about memory problems, and the ability of participants' FHT to manage cognitive impairment independently. Engagement in dementia care practice activities increased following the program. All but one FHT successfully formed a memory clinic. DISCUSSION: This training program represents a significant opportunity to bring about evidence-based practice change through a capacity development initiative to support primary care providers to maintain the majority of dementia care within primary care practice. The provision of practical knowledge and resources and incorporating best teaching practices to maximize knowledge transfer contributed to the success of this program.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".