MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767414730 · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1192

Patient and provider experiences with relationship, information, and management continuity

2017· article· en· W2767414730 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeanette Jackson, Gail MacKean, Tim Cooke, Markus Lahtinen

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Experience Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySaskatchewan Health Quality Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health carePatient satisfactionPerspective (graphical)Continuity of careFocus groupPatient experienceNursingMedicineValue (mathematics)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyBusinessMarketingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From 2003 to 2014, the Health Quality Council of Alberta (HQCA) monitored patient experiences with healthcare services through a biennial Satisfaction and Experience with Healthcare Services (SEHCS) survey. The findings consistently showed a direct link between coordination of care, an aspect of continuity of care, and healthcare outcomes. Specifically, it showed that better coordination is linked to positive outcomes; the reverse is also true. Given the critical role continuity of care plays in the healthcare system, the HQCA conducted in-depth interviews, interactive feedback sessions and focus groups with patients and providers to explore factors that influence both seamless and fragmented patient journeys. Continuity of care refers to “the degree to which a series of discrete healthcare events is experienced as coherent and connected and consistent with the patient’s healthcare needs and personal context”. Reviews of international literature have identified three major subtypes of continuity across healthcare settings: relationship, information, and management continuity. This study showed that from the patient perspective, relationship continuity is most valued and is foundational for experiencing information and management continuity. A trusting, patient-centred, and respectful relationship with a primary healthcare provider is central to this. From the provider perspective, information continuity is most important. Primary care providers get frustrated if information is withheld or delayed, and if other providers change treatment plans or medications. Patients highly value timely access to their own information. They also value having enough time during an appointment with a family doctor who listens and communicates effectively. Both patients and providers value and benefit from management continuity, which was described by many as a partnership or shared responsibility for managing and coordinating healthcare services. Future conversations about health system design should focus on how all providers and services can work together, and engage patients, to co-design a system that is built around patient-centred relationships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Experience JournalSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207