MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OP71 ACP alberta: collaborative action of health care, legal, government, community and academic sectors to increase participation in advance care planning

2019· article· en· W3022359008 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maureen Douglas, Konrad Fassbender, Nola M. Ries, Eric Wasylenko, Patricia Biondo, Jessica Simon, Neil A. Hagen, BS Chamaschuk

Bibliographic record

VenueOral Presentations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health Quality CouncilUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvance care planningPublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Health careBusinessMedicinePublic administrationPalliative carePolitical scienceNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background In 2014, Alberta’s health service providers implemented a province-wide Advance Care Planning (ACP) and Goals of Care Designation policy. Despite significant efforts, barriers to full implementation remain including lack of public comprehension across health, legal and other public systems. A World Café consultation revealed multi jurisdictional recommendations to ‘normalize ACP.’ Methods Through the ACP Collaborative Research Innovation Opportunities program, we formed a collaboration with lawyers, Legal Education Society of Alberta, Canadian Bar Association, Law Society of Alberta, palliative care physicians, patient advocates, academics, provincial health care providers and other stakeholders. A community of practice propagated spontaneously. Surveys and focus groups identified barriers, knowledge and resource gaps, and novel solutions, including joint health-legal education. Results Traditional approaches to ACP have been siloed. We expand on the innovative medico-legal framework to include other stakeholders including community agencies, faith groups, health advocacy agencies, national ACP projects, and the financial planning and insurance industries. Ongoing collaborative activities include community engagement, education, policy and practice innovation, which bundles activities relating to health care planning with those relating to personal and financial planning. Our business case addresses the identified gaps and adopts public recommendations through activities to coordinate, integrate and/or support development/implementation of a community volunteer program, an electronic registry for ACP and Goals of Care documentation, and a legal toolkit. Conclusion In practice, ACP spans medical, legal, social and personal domains. Multi-disciplinary and multi-sector approaches are posited to improve knowledge and uptake of ACP while improving the quality of life of Albertans.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.364 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOral PresentationsSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207