MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new model of care: An advanced practice radiation therapy role.

2014· article· en· W2591165110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Elizabeth Lockhart, Eric Gutierrez, Padraig Warde, Kate Bak, Laura Zychla, Amanda Bolderston, Donna Lewis, Marcia Smoke, Julie Wenz, Lynne Nagata, Michelle Ang, Nicole Harnett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Health and Long Term CarePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreBC Cancer AgencyJuravinski Cancer CentreCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadiation TherapistMedicineCertificationPalliative careHealth careNursingFamily medicineMedical educationRadiation therapyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

131 Background: Due to the rising incidence of cancer, increasing complexity of cancer treatment and growing resource constraints, there is demand for innovative interprofessional models of care. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), in collaboration with Ontario’s Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, launched the Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapist (CSRT) project to investigate a new advanced practice (AP) radiation therapy (RT) role. Methods: A series of pilot phases commenced in 2004. A system wide implementation phase began in 2010. The overall goal of the project was to enable CSRTs to assume responsibility for certain key radiation medicine activities, optimize RT team functioning, and improve quality of care. This was to be achieved by applying advanced clinical, technical and professional RT competencies. A project team coordinated assessment of new position proposals, implementation activities, and data collection. Work towards formalizing the role is being conducted through partnerships with cancer centre administrations and the national professional association for RTs. Results: Currently there are 17 CSRTs in 6 of 14 Ontario cancer centres, practicing in palliative and disease-site specific positions. The provincial total will be 24 CSRTs in 10 centres by Fall 2014. Data show a major impact on patient throughput and wait times, with significant increased capacity in some clinics. CSRTs’ impact within their departments is being evaluated with regards to: 1) capacity building, 2) quality of care, and 3) knowledge translation (KT). In terms of role formalization, 6 positions are now considered permanent within their centres and the first iteration of a national certification process is anticipated for fall 2014. Conclusions: The CSRT project is aligned with CCO's priorities of improving Ontario’s cancer system performance by implementing innovative models of care and providing high quality care. This jurisdictional implementation project has demonstrated that an AP RT role can be successful in addressing system pressures and improving quality of care and innovation in Radiation Medicine. Further work is necessary to develop and formalize this AP role and leverage learnings for national implementation and future models of care work.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.344
GPT teacher head0.620
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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