Improving team-based care for children: shared well child care involving family practice nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Well child care (WCC) is the provision of routine preventative care and vaccinations to infants and children. In Canada, physicians provide the majority of this type of care, whereas in other developed countries, nurses provide most WCC. New models of shared care between nurses and family physicians should be explored. OBJECTIVE: This pilot project aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of shared nurse-physician WCC for a cohort of healthy children. METHODS: A total of 20 participants had nurse-physician alternating WCC visits, which were compared with physician-provided WCC visits. The feasibility was evaluated through chart audits and the acceptability was evaluated through interviews with the physicians, nurses, and the patients' parents. RESULTS: The results showed that physicians and nurses discuss a similar percentage of Rourke Baby Record topics, and that families and clinic staff were accepting of this new model of care. CONCLUSION: This intervention could liberate time for Canadian family physicians, thereby improving access to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".