MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2197156981 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.65

CLEAR: Whole Person Care Model for the Health Sciences Professions

2014· article· en· W2197156981 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carla Gober, Kathy McMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careMedical educationPsychologyNursingMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whole-person care has been important throughout the 150-year history of Loma Linda University and Hospital system (now Loma Linda University Health - LLUH). Since the 1950s, the motto is, “To make man whole.” However, up to 2011 there was no corporate-wide understanding of whole-person care, or a model to guide teaching and practice. Connected to this has been the question of whether spiritual care and whole person care were similar categories of understanding.Objective / Methods: In 2011 a group of nine researchers and clinicians designed a research/development project for the purpose of developing a whole-person care model to guide all teaching and practice at LLUH. A consultation group of approximately 300 researchers, clinicians, students and staff of LLUH were invited to give feedback during the course of the project through online avenues and group forums. This larger group was open to all interested people throughout LLUH. The research / development group considered all comments, critiques and suggestions made by the larger consultation group, with all work public to both groups.Results / Conclusions: From the process emerged the first draft of a whole-person care model in March of 2012, with the following qualities: measureable, memorable, practical, flexible, and teachable. After several pilot tests, the model was adopted by LLUH as the model to guide all teaching and practice at LLUH. Since that time, the model has been integrated into the orientation of new employees (clinical and university), the teaching practices of three schools (medicine, nursing, and religion) and is being integrated into the remaining four schools by 2014. It is also guiding the development of the online wellness website for the corporation. Finally, it is used to guide two new developments for the School of Medicine: 1) a Narrative Project designed for the first year School of Medicine students, and 2) the Integrative Whole-Person Care Simulation Labs developed for second year School of Medicine students.The poster presentation will describe the whole-person care model itself, the research/development process behind it, and give examples of how it has transformed teaching and practice in the university and clinical/hospital arenas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→