MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972564724 · doi:10.1177/2054358119871539

An Exploratory Study of Person-Centered Care in a Large Urban Hemodialysis Program in Canada Using a Qualitative Case-Study Methodology

2019· article· en· W2972564724 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel A. Lewis, Karen Benzies, Jennifer M. MacRae, Chandra Thomas, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMedicineNursingExploratory researchFocus groupHemodialysisHealth carePerceptionFamily medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Person-centered care (PCC) can benefit patients, clinical staff, and health care organizations, but has not yet been widely adopted into practice. Hemodialysis is a unique care environment in which clinical staff can be involved with patients for protracted periods of time each week and often over a number of years. While kidney care is arguably more holistic than other chronic condition management programs, most patients requiring hemodialysis do not receive care that is optimally person-centered. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to explore how care is experienced and provided in a large urban hemodialysis program in western Canada in relation to key principles of PCC. In addition, we wanted to understand what factors at an individual, unit, and organizational level facilitate or inhibit PCC in this environment. METHODS: We used a qualitative case-study approach to explore multiple perspectives of care provision using a number of data sources including semi-structured interviews with patients, family members, clinical staff, and administrative staff, as well as observing patterns of clinical practice in local hemodialysis units. FINDINGS: In our study of a single hemodialysis program, we found limited evidence of PCC. Overall, patients reported that their care was good and they had positive relationships with their care team. However, they did not feel involved in decisions regarding their care or consider it to be individualized. In general, providers acknowledged the potential benefits of PCC but were constrained in their practice by a number of factors, including individual perceptions of their role, a prescriptive care environment, and an organizational focus on managing demand. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of PCC within hemodialysis services was limited, with a number of individual, unit level, and organizational barriers mitigating against its adoption and spread.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0240.010
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207