MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200517376 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200210

Impact of the Connected Medicine collaborative in improving access to specialist care: a cross-sectional analysis

2021· article· en· W4200517376 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Clare Liddy, Emma Boulay, Lois M. Crowe, Maxine Dumas-Pilon, Neil Drimer, Gerard Farrell, Laurie Ireland, Christine Kirvan, Véronique Nabelsi, Alexander Singer, Margot Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversity of FrederictonNine Circles Community Health CentreUniversité du Québec à MontréalCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementProvidence Health CareOttawa HospitalBruyèreMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpecialtyService (business)MedicineService providerFamily medicinePrimary careHealth careBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> In 2017, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement launched the Connected Medicine collaborative to support the implementation, spread and adaptation of 2 innovative remote consult solutions — the Champlain Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation (BASE) eConsult service and the Rapid Access to Consultative Expertise (RACE) service — across Canada. We evaluated the impact of the programs implemented through the collaborative. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from provincial teams that participated in the Connected Medicine collaborative, which took place between June 2017 and December 2018 in 7 provinces across Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador). Data included utilization data collected automatically by the BASE and RACE services and, where available, responses to surveys completed by primary care providers at the end of each case. We assessed programs on the following outcomes: usage (i.e., number of cases completed, average specialist response time), number of specialties available, impact on primary care provider’s decision to refer and impact on emergency department visits. We performed descriptive analyses. <h3>Results:</h3> Ten provincial teams participated in the collaborative and implemented or adapted either the RACE service (4 teams), the BASE service (5 teams) or a combination of the 2 services (1 team). Average monthly case volume per team ranged from 14.7 to 424.5. All programs offered multispecialty access, with specialists from 5 to 37 specialty groups available. Specialists responded to eConsults within 7 days in 80% (<i>n</i> = 294/368) to 93% (<i>n</i> = 164/176) of cases. Six programs provided survey data on avoidance of referrals, which occurred in 48% (<i>n</i> = 667/1389) to 76% (<i>n</i> = 302/398) of cases. Two programs reported on the avoidance of potential emergency department visits, noting that originally considered referrals were avoided in 28% (<i>n</i> = 138/492) and 74% (<i>n</i> = 127/171) of cases, respectively. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> The 2 innovative virtual care solutions implemented through the Connected Medicine collaborative received widespread usage and affected primary care providers’ decisions to refer patients to specialists. The impact of these models of care in multiple settings shows that they are an effective means to move beyond the pilot stage and achieve spread and scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207