MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947530001 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028888

Supporting the spread and scale-up of electronic consultation across Canada: cross-sectional analysis

2019· article· en· W2947530001 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisNine Circles Community Health CentreNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchMcGill UniversityUniversity of AlbertaOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementMemorial University of NewfoundlandBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineReferralCross-sectional studyScale (ratio)Service (business)Family medicinePrimary careGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the process of implementing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service and evaluate its impact along key metrics outlined by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Clinics using eConsult in four provinces across Canada: Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. PARTICIPANTS: All eConsult cases submitted in four participating provinces were included. INTERVENTION: The eConsult service is a secure online application that allows primary care providers and specialists to communicate regarding a patient's care. We measured the impact using system utilisation data and mandatory close-out surveys completed at the end of each eConsult. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implementation progress and impact were examined using the five categories outlined by the RE-AIM framework: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. RESULTS: Four provinces provided data from different periods, ranging from 4 years (Alberta) to 10 months (Manitoba). Total cases completed ranged from 96 (Manitoba) to 6885 (Alberta). Newfoundland had the largest menu of available specialties (n=35), while Alberta and Quebec had the smallest (n=22). The most frequently requested groups varied across provinces, with only endocrinology appearing in the top five for all provinces. The average specialist response time ranged from 3 days (Manitoba) to 16.7 days (Alberta). Between 54% (Newfoundland) and 66% (Manitoba) of cases resulted in new or additional information. Primary care providers avoided completing referrals they had originally considered in 36% (Newfoundland) to 53% of cases (Manitoba), while only between 27 % (Quebec) and 29% (Newfoundland) of cases resulted in a referral. In every province, services demonstrated higher rates of usage in their last quarter of data than their first. CONCLUSIONS: eConsult was successfully implemented in four new provinces across Canada. Implementation strategies and scope varied, but services demonstrated substantial consistency on several key metrics, most notably on whether new information was learnt and impact on decision to refer.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.352 · 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