Difficulties Encountered in Collaborative Care: Logistics Trumps Desire
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
INTRODUCTION: This study examines the development of collaborative relationships between family physicians (FPs) and Anticipatory And Preventative Team Care (APTCare) team members providing care to medically complex patients who have been identified as at-risk for negative health outcomes. METHODS: We undertook a qualitative study of a primary health care intervention in a family practice. Interviews were held with FPs and ATPCare intervention nurse practitioners (NPs) and pharmacists. Focus groups were conducted and a survey was administered to participating FPs, NPs, and pharmacists. NPs and pharmacists maintained a log recording their tasks and moments of collaboration. RESULTS: Scheduling demands rendered face-to-face collaboration difficult, leaving the team to rely on technological tools to keep in touch. Limited space meant the APTCare team had to work out of a downstairs office, limiting informal interactions with the practitioners on the main level. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that the difficulties inherent in collaborative care are independent of the patient population being cared for. Regardless of the patient population and sector of health care, developing collaborative relationships and learning to work collaboratively is difficult and takes time. What many of these teams need is ongoing support and education about how to make these collaborative care practices work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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