Health care providers' experiences with delivering person centred care in an Integrated Care Program for thoracic surgery patients in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to understand health care providers' experiences with delivering a novel Integrated Care (IC) Program that co-ordinates hospital-based clinical services and home care for thoracic surgery patients, including perceptions on the provision of person-centred care and quality of work life. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a process evaluation using qualitative methods to understand provider experiences in the Integrated Care (IC) Program and to identify areas for programme improvement. Study data were collected using a focus group with thoracic surgeons, open-ended survey with home care providers, and semi-structured interviews with lead thoracic surgeons and IC leads, who are nurses serving as the primary point of contact for one consistent care team. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings The IC Program was successful in supporting a partnership between health care providers and patients and caregivers to deliver a comprehensive and person-centred care experience. Informational continuity between providers was facilitated by IC leads and improved over time with greater professional integration and adaptation to the new care delivery processes. Differential impacts were found on quality of work life for providers in the IC Program. Originality/value This study describes provider experiences with delivering integrated and person-centred care across the hospital to home continuum, which can inform future integrated care initiatives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".