Applying a Bauhaus design approach to conceptualize an integrated system of mental health care: Lessons from a large urban hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have applied a Bauhaus design lens to inform a visual conceptual framework for a rational mental health care system. We believe that Canada’s healthcare system can often be fragmented and does not always allow for service delivery to easily meet patient care needs. Within our proposed framework, the form of services provided follows patient- and healthcare-centred needs. The framework is also informed by the ethics and values of social responsibility, population health, and principles of quality of care. We review evidence for this framework (based on need, acuity, risk, service intensity, and provider level) and describe patient care pathways from intake/triage to three patient-centred tiers of care: (1) primary care (low needs), (2) acute ambulatory transitional care (moderate needs), and (3) acute hospital and complex care (high needs). Within each tier, various models of care are organized from low to high service intensity as informed by reports from the British Columbia Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization. We hope that our model may help to better conceptualize and organize our mental health care system and help providers clarify roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities to improve quality of care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".