Collaborative Care Transitions Symposium: Insights from Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: There are promising signs that interprofessional collaborative practice is associated with quality care transitions and improved access to patient-centred healthcare. A one-day symposium was held to increase awareness and capacity to deliver quality collaborative care transitions to interprofessional health disciplines and service users. METHOD: A mixed methods study was used that included a pre-post survey design and interviews to examine the impact of the symposium on knowledge, attitudes and practice change towards care transitions and collaborative practice with symposium participants. DISCUSSION: Our survey results revealed a statistically significant increase in only a few of the scores towards care transitions and collaborative practice among post-survey respondents. Three key themes emerged from the qualitative analysis, including: (1) engaging the patient at the heart of interprofessional collaboration and co-design of care transitions; (2) having time to reach out, share and learn from each other; and (3) reflecting, reinforcing and revising practice. CONCLUSION: Further efforts that engage inter-organizational learning by exchanging knowledge and evaluating these forums are warranted.
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 | 0.021 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".