Computerized Care-Pathways (CCPs) System to Support Person-Centered, Integrated, and Proactive Care in Home-Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the software design/development process leading to an improved computerized clinical/management solution-RSIPA (2016 version)-integrating care pathways (CPs) specifically designed to meet the needs of frail and disabled older adults in home care. The development methodology used Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) for the initial system design and participatory design (PD) to involve stakeholders and end users, along with AGILE SCRUM methodology to provide rapid iterations in adapting to new requests. Given scarce project resources, we opted to combine methodologies to efficiently deliver a fully functional system for three of the five CP clinical phases. The development methodology aggregated assessment-based data to identify risk factors and assist in needs prioritization leading to care plans and addressed in the current system. The new Quebec RSIPA solution incorporating CCPs is a promising example of technologies that support person-centered care, clinical and management processes, and proactive care in home-care settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".