MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295943174 · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2022.0031

Using the quadruple aim to understand the impact of virtual delivery of care within Ontario community health centres: a qualitative study

2022· article· en· W4295943174 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sara Bhatti, Simone Dahrouge, Laura Muldoon, Jennifer Rayner

Bibliographic record

VenueBJGP Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family MedicineWestern UniversityAccess Alliance Multicultural Health and Community ServicesCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisHealth careContext (archaeology)NursingPhoneService providerMedicineQualitative researchPopulationPsychologyService (business)BusinessEnvironmental healthMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and introduction of various restrictions resulted in drastic changes to 'traditional' primary healthcare service delivery modalities. AIM: To understand the impact of virtual care on healthcare system performance within the context of Ontario community health centres (CHCs). DESIGN & SETTING: Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with 36 providers and 31 patients. METHOD: Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted in the autumn of 2020. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically using the quadruple aim framework. RESULTS: The transition to virtual delivery of services has had both positive and negative impacts on care. Virtual care removed certain barriers to care such as access. However, patients and providers found that phone visits impacted quality of care owing to the inability to read body language and having to rely solely on patient descriptions. Video visits allowed for a similar experience to in-person visits but technical issues constrained this interaction. Depending on the service provided, some providers felt they were not providing the same quality of care. However, providers reported reductions in no-show rates and highlighted the efficiency of virtual appointments. Providers also found they were able to collaborate at a similar level before the pandemic and saw improvements in work-life balance. Overall, patients and providers alike preferred virtual visits with those known to them, and for less complex or transactional aspects of care. CONCLUSION: The study described positive and negative impacts on patient care, population health, health system costs, and provider experience. These results will be useful for primary care organisations in post-pandemic planning; however, future research is needed for a deeper exploration of the impact on quality of care specifically for more complex health concerns.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJGP OpenSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207