Assessment Of Adherence To Health Quality Ontario Standards For COPD Care In A Rural Primary Care Setting: A Retrospective Chart Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Up to 80% of care for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is delivered by primary care physicians. However, in rural areas access to primary care is lower, with worse COPD outcomes. To ensure a high level of care for COPD in a rural Ontario setting we evaluated adherence to Health Quality Ontario’s (HQO) Quality Standards for COPD in a primary care setting. The purpose of this study was to determine if HQO’s Quality Standards (QS) were being met in this setting. The secondary aim of the study was to determine if any characteristics are predictive of the HQO QS met. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted using a random sample of patients (n = 80) aged 18 years and older with diagnosed COPD. The sample was drawn from one rural Ontario health clinic. All information was extracted from primary care electronic medical records. The main outcome measure was adherence to HQO’s Quality Standards for COPD. This was accessed using a local data collection approach for 13 of 14 of the HQO standards. The secondary aim was addressed by using regression modeling to determine if clinical or demographic characteristics were predicative of HQO QS met. RESULTS: Eighty participants were included in the study (39% female, mean age 72.3 (±9.74) years, mean COPD history of 6.2 (±3.5) years. The most frequently met HQO Quality Standards were 1) Diagnosis Confirmed with Spirometry (72%; 44/61), 2) Appropriate Pharmacological Management of Stable COPD (73%; 219/300), and 3) Vaccinations (63%; 101/160). Standards that were never met included: 4) Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) (0/150), 5) Management of Acute Exacerbations of COPD (0/35), and lastly 6) PR After Hospitalization for an Acute Exacerbation of COPD (0/26). All other QS were met between 24% and 50%. Utilizing linear regression, four characteristics were significantly associated with the level of care received by the individual, including: a) participation in a self-management program, b) a visit to primary care for COPD in the past 12 months, c) non-smoking status, and d) seen by a Respirologist ever (R2 = 0.754, F (12,64) = 23.3, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adherence to HQO care standards is lacking, on average each individual received 37% of HQO QS. Characteristics associated with better COPD care overall may help identify opportunities for improvement. Sponsored by MF Mottola FACSM
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".