Intersectoral communication amongst healthcare providers regarding care plans: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care has become an increasingly important public health issue due to the rising acceptance of implementing a health promoting palliative care approach. To explore communication pathways that would facilitate implementation of this approach, we conducted a scoping review examining communication and enactment of care plans for older adults with life-limiting illnesses across health, social and community sectors. We used a scoping review methodology to map the current literature on communication plans between primary care and other sectors (community, health, and social). Five databases were searched MEDLINE (ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), PsychInfo (EBSCO), and Scopus. The database search identified 5,289 records, after screening and hand-searching a total of 28 articles were extracted. Three major themes were determined through the records: (1) the importance of professional relationships across sectors, (2) the importance of community navigators in sharing the care plan, and (3) and creating comprehensive and multidisciplinary care plans. Findings suggested that enacting quality care plans is important to healthcare providers; the use of an electronic health records system can be useful in ensuring that all healthcare and community systems are in place to aid patients for better community-based care. Community navigators were also key to ensure that plans are communicated properly and efficiently. Further research is needed to determine how having a clear and properly implemented communication system for a healthcare system could facilitate community sector involvement in implementing care plans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".