Implementation of an integrated cancer care network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17564 Background: In 1998, the province of Quebec adopted its cancer control program (CP). Its goal was to establish a hierarchical and integrated cancer network of interdisciplinary teams. In 2004, a team evaluation process was initiated by the Direction de la lutte contre le cancer (ministry of health) to help implement this program. Methods: The evaluation consisted of completion of a matrix by the requesting team, a visit by a multidisciplinary group of experts and a report card. Three levels of expertise were assessed: core (all), regional (regional hospitals), and supraregional (tumor specific/complex situations). The matrix was based on the fundamental orientations of the CP, thus setting the framework for patient centered care. The conformity indicators were mainly structural and process oriented. In order to be evaluated for the subsequent mandates, teams had to conform to the core mandate. Those who did not succeed had one year to reapply. Mandates are for 4 years. Results: Teams were able to comply with most of the elements of the evaluation matrix. Sessions for clarification and coaching about this new interdisciplinary approach were necessary and helpful. A total of 153 visits were done:70 for core, 8 for regional and 75 for supraregional mandates respectively. Major health institutions such as university hospitals applied for multiple supraregional team designation. In all, 130 teams had their designation confirmed. This process highlighted some common weaknesses such as the lack of use of data for quality control. Conclusions: Acceptance of this hierarchical cancer care model was facilitated by the fact that it was in line with the integrated health care network of Quebec. The evaluation process has had an impact on the way cancer care is delivered in Quebec. This initial phase has helped implement an interdisciplinary patient centered model of care in line with the CP. Participation of different experts has also helped foster knowledge transfer and appropriation of the process. Impact on patient care and satisfaction remains to be assessed. An initial patient's questionnaire has been completed in 2008 and will serve as a control to future surveys. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.002 |
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".