Development and validation of the RQC: a daily contact log for ACT and ICM teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim – Instruments to measure the process - the daily activities of home care workers - have received little attention and may impede research in refining the active ingredients, the clientele best served and continuous quality improvement. We developed a decade ago in Quebec, Canada, a new daily contact log ( relevé quotidien des contacts or RQC ) that has now reached in practice 1 million entries. Methods – Three features distinguish the RQC development, namely, practical ergonomics, a clear logic, and response categories easy to understand and retain. The instrument is filled following any 10-minute or more contact with or about the client, and covers the location, time and actors of the episode of care, and the nature of the intervention (crisis, representing, accompanying, discussing) in 10 areas (i.e. medication, daily living activities, housing, relationships, substance abuse, legal, etc.). Inter-rater agreement for each RQC response category and rater agreement with a criterion measure (coded vignettes) were evaluated. Results – Kappa coefficients and intra-class correlation coefficients yielded results ranging from at least moderate to generally substantial agreement for all 77 response categories. Conclusions – The new RQC may support international studies of the implementation and application of various forms of intensive home care, refining its indications, and serves as a clinical and managerial tool to ensure quality of the interventions. Declaration of Interest: The study was financed by funds from the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The authors have not been involved with any other forms of financing that might be considered a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. Declaration of Interest: The study was financed by funds from the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). The authors have not been involved with any other forms of financing that might be considered a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".