MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ovarian cancer pathway map development as an approach to identifying priority areas for quality improvement in Ontario.

2016· article· en· W2891007196 on OpenAlexaffabout
Helen Mackay, Jasmin Soobrian, Sarah E. Ferguson, Wylam Faught, Jillian Ross, Claire Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity Health NetworkCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultidisciplinary approachQuality managementReimbursementStakeholderSpecialtyWorking groupIdentification (biology)Knowledge translationQuality (philosophy)Health careProcess managementNursingFamily medicineOperations managementKnowledge managementBusinessPublic relationsPolitical scienceManagement systemEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e18190 Background: Disease Pathway Management (DPM) is the unifying approach to the way in which Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) sets priorities for cancer control, plans cancer services and improves the quality of care in Ontario. In January 2015, DPM began developing an ovarian cancer pathway map (OCPM) to map the patient journey along the ovarian cancer care continuum. Objective: to report on the OCPM development process as a tool to identify key priorities for ovarian cancer management. Methods: DPM convened a multidisciplinary/multi-stakeholder ovarian cancer working group with regional and specialty representation from across Ontario. Over 12 months, 30 individuals participated in an in-person meeting and monthly teleconferences. The OCPM was drafted using guidelines developed by CCO’s Program in Evidence Based Care (PEBC) and considered multiple sources of evidence-based practice from several jurisdictions. Throughout the development process the working group was asked to discuss and reach consensus on key priorities for improving care. Results: Twenty-five priority areas were identified across the continuum in: prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Opportunities were identified for: development/endorsement of evidence-based guidelines, quality improvement, horizon scanning, and an OCPM knowledge translation strategy. Potentially actionable items were aligned with relevant internal and external stakeholders including the PEBC, provincial drug reimbursement programs and other quality improvement teams within CCO. Conclusions: The process of bringing multidisciplinary experts together in order to develop the OCPM successfully identified key priorities across the spectrum of care in Ontario and allowed identification of potential opportunities for quality improvement, development of practice guidelines and new models of care. In turn, the OCPM provides a patient-centred disease focused framework from which stakeholders can approach and evaluate new initiatives in the context of the ovarian cancer care continuum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.571
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.043 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicClinical practice guidelines implementationFrench-language works237,207