Implementation and evaluation of a quality improvement project: carepaths for Early Psychosis Intervention Programmes in Northeastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study aims to describe the implementation and evaluation of a quality improvement project, which aimed to standardize services and documentation across several district Early Psychosis Intervention Programmes in a rural region of Canada (Northeastern Ontario). METHOD: A Carepath for early psychosis intervention (EPI), which outlined best practice EPI care pathways, was implemented across 12 EPI programme sites. It was hypothesized that the proportion of best practice interventions provided across the district programmes would increase after the implementation of the Carepath initiative and that documentation would be standardized. Pre-Carepath and post-Carepath chart audits evaluated the provision and documentation of EPI best practices that were specified in the Carepath. RESULTS: Pre-audits and post-audits were completed on 110 and 108 client files, respectively. Chi-squared tests revealed that the post-audit frequencies were significantly higher than the pre-audit frequencies for two of the 12 EPI best practices that were evaluated (i.e. assessed impact on family and assessment of substance use). Standardization of documentation did not improve significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The results are discussed in the context of barriers to implementing and evaluating the Carepaths. Various individual and agency level barriers are identified (e.g. staff resistance, resources and agency documentation parameters), and strategies to overcome them are discussed. It is concluded that, despite barriers to implementation and evaluation, Carepaths can be a useful tool for standardizing services and documentation across a network of EPI programmes and guiding programme evaluation and quality assurance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".