MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388719993 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.5270

The implementation of practice facilitators in primary care settings without university affiliation in Quebec, a case study

2023· article· en· W4388719993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maude Laberge, Victoria Than, Geneviève Roch

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical practice guidelines implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFacilitatorContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchMedical educationData collectionNursingBest practicePsychologyMedicineSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Practice facilitators were integrated into Quebec’s university primary care settings. These facilitators play a key role in the quality improvement culture. Following the evaluation of the contribution of the practice facilitators in this type of primary care setting, a 1-year pilot project was conducted in one of Quebec’s administrative regions. This study examined the implementation process of the practice facilitators in primary care settings without university affiliation. This study was conducted as a descriptive embedded case study, thereby allowing the consideration of the implementation process in each of the region’s 4 sub-territory. Qualitative methods were used to assess the perception of the practice facilitators’ role and contribution, the governance characteristics and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic’s context on their integration. Data collection included reports, organizational charts, job posting and semi-structured interviews with practice facilitators, managers and physicians. The Conceptual Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder, 2009) was used for data collection and analysis. As a collaborative research, preliminary results were presented to a committee twice. 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 5 practice facilitators, 7 managers, 1 practice facilitator in a university family medicine group and 6 physicians. Unanimously, the perception of the role of the practice facilitators of all the stakeholders was seen as positive on the qualitative improvement culture and the implementation process of primary care projects. Being decentralized, the practice facilitators can respond in a better and personalized way to each of their sub-territory needs. Thus, improving the relations they have with the primary care settings. Co-management was seen as an important characteristic to facilitate the integration and the perception of practice facilitators. The COVID-19 pandemic’s context served as a lever for the integration of practice facilitators and their collaboration with members of the primary care settings. The implementation of practice facilitators was positive. Acting as facilitator, change and project managers, these professionals play a key role in the improvement of quality culture, management practices and primary care. This study suggested important components to consider in the implementation of practice facilitators in primary care settings without university affiliation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.387 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical practice guidelines implementation→French-language works237,207→