Measurement of person-centered care delivery of adult oncology in Ontario, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
223 Background: In the Ontario, Canada, cancer system, the provincially endorsed Person Centred Care (PCC) Guideline provides recommendations for healthcare providers to implement PCC in the delivery of adult oncology services. However, it is unknown whether healthcare providers have incorporated these recommendations into their daily practice within the Regional Cancer Programs (RCPs). The purpose of this study was to develop an assessment tool to evaluate the implementation of the PCC Guideline in Ontario RCPs. Methods: Tool development consisted of a 3-step process: 1) literature review to identify relevant measures, 2) Modified Delphi with a panel of experts (n = 8), and 3) focus groups with patient/family advisors (n = 5) and RCP PCC leads (i.e., designated individual responsible for PCC deliverables) (n = 7). Results: Through the literature review, two relevant tools were identified ( i.e., Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care’s Hospital Assessment Tool and Accreditation Canada’s Cancer Care Standards), resulting in 187 measures deemed appropriate to include in the assessment tool. In round one of the Modified Delphi, each measure was evaluated independently by a panel of experts using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) to assess both the importance and feasibility of each measure. Sixty-seven measures were rated 4 or above by 70% of the experts. Consistent with Modified Delphi best practice, these measures were discussed during the second round with the panel of experts. An additional 33 measures were removed due to similarities/duplications. Nine measures were added. The 42 measures were presented to patient/family advisors and the RCP PCC Leads during focus groups and evaluated based on importance and feasibility of assessing PCC implementation in the RCPs. Wording recommendations were made and two additional measures were added. The final tool includes 44 measures to evaluate PCC implementation within the RCPs. The assessment tool was disseminated to the 14 RCPs in October 2016. Conclusions: The results of this assessment will provide an understanding of the current state of PCC Guideline implementation in Ontario, in order to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".