Processes of patient-centred care in Family Health Teams: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-centred care, access to care, and continuity of and coordination of care are core processes in primary health care delivery. Our objective was to evaluate how these processes are enacted by 1 primary care model, Family Health Teams, in Ontario. METHODS: Our study used grounded theory methodology to examine these 4 processes of care from the perspective of health care providers. Twenty Family Health Team practice sites in Ontario were selected to represent maximum variation (e.g., location, year of Family Health Team approval). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each participant. A constant comparative approach was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Our final sample population involved 110 participants from 20 Family Health Teams. Participants described how their Family Health Team strived to provide patient-centred care, to ensure access, and to pursue continuity and coordination in their delivery of care. Patient-centred care was provided through a variety of means forging the links among the other processes of care. Participants from all teams articulated a commitment to timely access, spontaneously expressing the importance of access to mental health services. Continuity of care was linked to both access and patient-centred care. Coordination of care by the team was perceived to reduce unnecessary walk-in clinic and emergency department visits, and facilitated a smoother transition from hospital to home. INTERPRETATION: These 4 processes of patient care were inextricably linked. Patient-centred care was the focal point, and these processes in turn served to enhance the delivery of patient-centred care.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".