Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: While the home-based primary care model offers potential patient and system-level benefits, implementation of interprofessional home-based primary care teams has not been widespread. When caring for homebound patients, family physicians are often not included as regular contributors or participants in the team that coordinates and plans much of the care for these patients. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To describe a selection of home-based primary care practices and to identify barriers to and facilitators of the creation and sustainability of these models within the publicly funded health care system. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Five existing home-based primary care practices were examined: 1 each in Victoria and Vancouver in BC; 1 in Winnipeg, Man; and 2 in Toronto, Ont. The research team conducted semistructured team interviews, interviews with the physician leads, and informal observation of elements of team-based care planning at these 5 sites. From these sources, descriptions of each practice were developed in terms of practice history, context, and initiating factors; practice goals and performance management; and practice design elements, including target population, referral sources, and team composition. A qualitative thematic content analysis was used to extract and distil implementation barriers and facilitators across the 5 practices. Members of each practice team validated the interpretation of thematic information. Substantial heterogeneity was found in the composition of the interprofessional teams. The overarching initiating factor for the home-based component of all practices could be described as identifying and addressing unmet community need. Physician leadership, creative funding models, team camaraderie, and community partnerships were the main facilitators. Limited health system support, geography, and lack of existing models of care were the main barriers. CONCLUSION: Substantial barriers to wider implementation of home-based primary care practices persist. Examination of existing practices identifies the importance of physician leadership and commitment to meeting community need.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".