Exploring the Delivery of Healthcare in the Police Detention Center Through Remote Presence Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is overwhelming evidence to support the delivery of high-quality health service at a lower cost with the use of advanced technologies. Implementing remote presence technology to expand clinical care has been fraught with barriers that limit interprofessional collaboration and optimal client outcomes. In Canada, government ministries responsible for correctional services, policing, and health are well positioned to link federal, provincial, and regional services to enhance service delivery at the point of care for individuals detained within the justice system. Using remote presence technology to link the detention center with relevant health services such as the emergency room has the potential to open up a new care pathway. RESEARCH QUESTION: The key research question was how a new intervention pathway for individuals detained in police service detention centers could be implemented. RESEARCH DESIGN: Utilizing an exploratory qualitative research design, interviews were undertaken with 12 police service and six healthcare participants. Data were transcribed and thematically analyzed. FINDINGS: Four main themes emerged and included role conflict, risk management, resource management, and access to services. A number of collaborative learning partnerships were identified by the participants. IMPLICATIONS: These themes reveal important facilitators and barriers to attending to the health needs of detainees within the police detention center through the utilization of remote presence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".