Patient and Citizen Innovation Council in family practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: Patient engagement is integral to the Patient's Medical Home model. Patient-centred care is more than what happens in the examination room. Decisions around clinic processes, work flow, and initiative prioritization also warrant a patient perspective. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: The Academic Family Medicine Clinic at the South Health Campus in Calgary, Alta, identified a need for patient and community advisory expertise regarding clinic initiatives and quality improvement. A council was proposed to engage patients and citizens in exploring meaningful ways to drive innovation and improve the care experience. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Academic Family Medicine Clinic partnered with the South Health Campus Patient and Family Centred Care staff in developing a dedicated family medicine patient and community council. The resulting committee of 6 volunteers and 3 staff members has delivered presentations to incoming family medicine residents and staff on the role of a patient advisory council; advised on methodology to collect and represent broad patient perspectives; provided patient-perspective input to operations management and quality improvement committees; developed a pilot patient satisfaction and experience survey; and brought additional perspective, based on learnings from other industries and professions with experience in "customer service," on how to enhance the quality of the patient experience. CONCLUSION: A patient advisory council has the potential to reach beyond simple patient engagement toward functional involvement in decision making about clinic operations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".