MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pathway map development as an approach to identifying priority areas for quality improvement in Ontario.

2016· article· en· W2590321819 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Mackay, Jasmin Soobrian, Joan Murphy, L. Elit, Michael Milosevic, Angelika Gollnow, Jillian Ross, Claire Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsTrillium Health CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachSpecialtyQuality managementCervical cancerStakeholderSurvivorship curveReimbursementHealth careNursingKnowledge translationFamily medicineMEDLINEProcess managementCancerKnowledge managementPublic relationsOperations managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

108 Background: Disease Pathway Management (DPM) is the unifying approach to the way in which Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) sets priorities for cancer control, plans cancer services and improves the quality of care in Ontario. In 2014 DPM began developing a cervical cancer pathway map (CCPM) to map the patient journey along the cervical cancer care continuum. Objective: to report on the CPPM development process as a tool to identify key priorities for cervical cancer management in Ontario. Methods: DPM convened a multidisciplinary/multi-stakeholder cervical cancer working group with regional and specialty representation from across Ontario. Over 12 months, 33 individuals participated in an in-person meeting and monthly teleconferences. The CCPM was drafted using guidelines developed by CCO’s Program in Evidence Based Care (PEBC) and considering clinical guidance documents from several jurisdictions. Throughout the development process the team were asked to discuss and reach consensus on key priorities for improving care. Results: Twenty-two priority areas were identified across the continuum in: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, follow-up and survivorship. Opportunities were identified for: development/endorsement of evidence based guidelines; patient-centered approaches to screening; quality improvement; survivorship; drug funding implementation and a CPPM Knowledge Translation strategy. Potentially actionable items were aligned with relevant internal and external stakeholders including organized screening programs, the PEBC, provincial drug reimbursement programs and other quality improvement teams within CCO. Conclusions: The process of bringing multidisciplinary experts together in order to develop the CPPM successfully identified key priorities across the spectrum of care in Ontario and allowed identification of potential opportunities for quality improvement, development of practice guidelines and new models of care. In turn, the CCPM provides a patient-centred disease focused framework from which stakeholders can approach and evaluate new initiatives in the context of the cervical cancer continuum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.597
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.018 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207