Improving the patient experience for cancer patients in Ontario through real-time measurement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
240 Background: Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is an Ontario government agency that drives system wide quality improvement in disease prevention and screening, the delivery of care and the patient experience (PE), for cancer, chronic kidney disease and access to care for key health services. CCO partners with 14 Regional Cancer Programs across the province. CCO measures the cancer PE retrospectively through a paper-based Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey but there are limitations such as the delay in reporting of results. CCO is developing and implementing a province-wide electronic real-time PE survey to measure PE. An electronic survey tool will enable the collection, analysis and reporting of PE data more quickly to drive quality improvement. Methods: A current state assessment was undertaken in fall 2013 to understand support for and readiness of CCO’s Regional Cancer Centres (RCCs) to move forward with measuring PE in real-time, at point of care. 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with RCCs Regional Vice Presidents (RVP); over 800 patients participated in focus groups in 11 of 14 regions; a targeted online survey was completed by 16 administrators in 14 regions. Results: Interest in a real-time measurement (RTM) approach was overwhelmingly positive – 94% of patients and 100% of RVPs thought that measuring PE in real-time is important. Patients want the real-time survey to be short - 61% of patients reported that the number of questions they are willing to answer is 5-10, with 18% indicating 15 questions. 62% of patients reported that they were willing to spend 2-6 minutes answering a survey, with 24% reporting 10 minutes. 36% of the RCCs have ad hoc RTM strategies and 21% have utilized an electronic tool. There was no co-ordination or data sharing between RCPs. Conclusions: CCO is implementing a province-wide RTM strategy which includes the validation of a RTM PE survey and procurement of an electronic solution to capture, analyze and report PE data. CCO will initially pilot the survey and electronic tool with the intention of a provincial rollout to cancer centres upon a post-pilot evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".