MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2534378023 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.389

F2‐03‐02: Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinics in Ontario

2016· article· en· W2534378023 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Family Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMedicineDementiaPrimary careFamily medicineAccreditationNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although primary care in Canada is ideally positioned to offer comprehensive dementia care, typically there has been a reliance on specialists for dementia care, with lengthy wait times for assessment. In Ontario, Primary Care Collaborative Memory Clinics (PCCMCs) have transformed the system of care for persons with dementia by building capacity for dementia assessment and management in primary care a through collaboration between primary care physicians, specialists, interprofessional health care providers, and community agencies. Through a standardized accredited training program, 77 PCCMCs have been established across the province, serving over 1000 primary care practices with patient base of 1,500.000. This presentation will describe the PCCMC care model and its impact on access to care, specialist referrals, and dementia care for patients and caregivers. Referrals and service provision data collected from 32 PCCMCs were tracked for an average of nine months following clinic launch. Data was collected on number of referrals, assessments conducted, and referrals to specialists, and wait time to assessment. Eight months following clinic launch, team members were surveyed to identify benefits of this care model to patients and caregivers. Across the PCCMCs, 1553 patients were referred for assessment, of which 75% had been assessed during the study period. Average wait time for assessment was 1.5 months; 35% of patients were assessed within a month of referral. Fewer than 20% of patients waited more than three months for assessment. Nine percent (N = 104/1166) of patients were referred to specialists for consultation. Surveys were completed by 198 of 363 (54%) of team members. Responses highlighted benefits related to improved and timely access to care close to home, improved quality of care with collaborative team-based care, including greater access to caregiver supports, and improved continuity of care. PCCMCs represent a significant opportunity to build capacity for timely, accessible person-centred dementia care within primary care practice, making more efficient use of limited specialist resources. The provision of comprehensive quality care in primary care can strengthen the system’s ability to meet the needs of persons with dementia, the demand for which will escalate with an aging population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→