Using patient value statements to develop a culture of patient-centred care: a case study of an Ontario, Canada hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-centred care (PCC) is not a new concept; however, in recent years it has garnered increasing attention in the research literature and clinical practice. PCC in clinical practice has been found to improve clinical outcomes, resource allocation, and the patient experience. In response to the need for PCC and quality in healthcare, the Ontario, Canada government developed the Excellent Care for All Act (ECFAA) in 2010. The ECFAA imposes six obligations to Ontario hospitals, one of which is developing and publishing a Patient Declaration of Values (PDoV). The purpose of this study was to explore how a leading patient-centred Ontario hospital operationalized their patient value statement in policy and practice. The objectives of this research were to: a) understand what role the patient value statement played in policy and practice within a leading Ontario hospital and b) to examine how a leading Ontario hospital incorporated these values into their overarching organizational structures. This was a qualitative case study, which took place in a leading patient-centred Ontario hospital. The study included 18 interviews with employees and patient/family advisors. The analysis found a five-step process including: 1) setting the stage, 2) inspiring change, 3) organizational capacity, 4) barriers, and 5) reflection and improvement. This study has highlighted the role of a patient value statement within a leading Ontario hospital. The findings provide a five-step process with 12 core strategies for creating change in a healthcare organization; to embed a culture 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".