Measuring the performance of interprofessional primary health care teams: understanding the teams perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers. BACKGROUND: Despite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models. METHODS: A qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question. FINDINGS: A total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).
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 | 0.026 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".