Provider perceptions of implementation of integrated care pathways for patients with chronic heart conditions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated care pathways (ICPs) for atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure have been examined in the literature. Systematic study, however, of provider experiences with implementation of pathways for these conditions is lacking. Given the pivotal role of nurses in the care of these chronic heart conditions, this information may be valuable for cardiovascular nurses who use pathways for these chronic heart conditions. In this study, qualitative methods were used to systematically examine providers' experiences with the implementation of integrated care pathways for these conditions. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists provided feedback on their experiences. Analyses revealed that pathways were perceived by providers to have strengths (e.g., improved communication, knowledge, transition, patient involvement and review), but also multiple challenges (e.g., education, timelines, complexity, interest, ownership, coordination, and documentation) when implemented for these complex chronic medical conditions. Provider recommendations for pathway implementation with these conditions are shared in this study. This information may facilitate cardiovascular nurses in implementing ICPs in other centres.
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 | 0.000 | 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".