Assessing clinical support and inter-professional interactions among front-line primary care providers in remote communities in northern Canada: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care in remote communities in northern Canada is delivered primarily by nurses who receive clinical support from physicians in regional centres and the patient transportation system. To improve continuity, quality and access to care in remote northern communities, it is important to understand the perspectives of front-line providers and the complex challenges they face. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement a survey of primary care providers to identify issues relating to inter-professional communication, clinical support and patient evacuation. METHODS: In collaboration with the territorial government and regional health authority partners, we developed a 21-item self-administered questionnaire survey, which could be completed online. The survey was sent to 218 physicians and nurses who were employed in the Northwest Territories (NWT) at the time of the survey and were involved in sending patients out of the community and/or receiving patients. The survey also contained an open-ended question at the end seeking comments regarding primary health care. RESULTS: The overall low response rate of 39% among nurses and 19% among physicians threatens the validity of the quantitative results. The majority of providers were satisfied with their ability to communicate with other providers in a timely manner, their freedom to make clinical decisions and their overall experience practicing in the NWT. The patient transfer system appears to work from both the sender and receiver perspectives. However, a common theme reported by nurses was that physicians providing clinical advice, especially short-term locums, were not familiar with the local situation, whilst physicians at the receiving end remarked that the clinical information provided to them often lacked clarity. CONCLUSIONS: Important lessons were learnt from the pilot study, especially in better engagement of providers in planning and dissemination. The questionnaire design and the online method of delivery were acceptable. Although important issues were identified, a larger definitive survey is needed to investigate them in the future.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".