MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development of provincial clinical standards for the province of Ontario.

2015· article· en· W2591114740 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sara Urowitz, Jeff Myers, Deanna Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedicineStakeholderDeclarationContext (archaeology)Stakeholder engagementGeneral partnershipNursingBest practiceHealth carePublic relationsBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

117 Background: The province of Ontario is committed to improving palliative care services. This commitment to change is outlined in The Declaration of Partnership, the provincial roadmap for improving palliative care. To help drive this change in the clinical environment, a Clinical Council for Palliative Care was established to be responsible for providing direction on clinical implications of policy, and advancing clinical improvement in palliative care in Ontario. To this end, Clinical Council has articulated a set of 12 interrelated provincial clinical standards which outline priority areas for clinical change and improvement in the province. Methods: Key stakeholder engagement was undertaken to identify evidence-based, best practices for delivery of palliative services. A consensus process was used to identify the priority set of essential clinical standards for high quality care that is both practical and scalable. Expert working groups were established to refine the standards based on evidence and leading or best practice to the Ontario context. Response was solicited from stakeholders, and qualitative analysis was conducted; standards will be refined based on feedback. Results: Based on the results of the stakeholder engagement, a “Clinical Change Strategy” was identified and a set 12 “clinical imperatives” were identified. Through the consensus process 12 Provincial Clinical Standards were endorsed. Conclusions: Engaging in an evidence informed process with key stakeholders has enabled the creation of a set of 12 interconnected Provincial Clinical Standards for palliative care in Ontario. These standards will help to advance high quality palliative care in the province. The standards represent a population health based strategy for change, which can have a positive impact at the systems level. Stakeholder feedback will result in further refinement of the standards, which will ultimately provide the foundation for standardized approaches for palliative services across Ontario.

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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.583
GPT teacher head0.638
Teacher spread0.055 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→