Enhancing interprofessional collaboration for unattached patients in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project explored an interprofessional collaboration initiative at Clinique Indigo which aimed to improve comprehensive care for unattached patients in Quebec's primary care system. Throughout the project, physicians and non-physician health professionals alike became more actively engaged in the care of patients lacking a regular primary care provider. The project successfully demonstrated that defining a common vision for "well care" within the clinic and integrating diverse professionals could significantly improve quality of care for unattached patients, evidenced by an increase from 13% to 43% in comprehensive care provision. However, the initiative also faced challenges, including professional turnover and gaps in primary care training, suggesting critical areas for future improvement in healthcare policy and practice. These results support expanded interprofessional approaches in primary care to address systemic care disparities in universal healthcare settings such as this one caused by the differential or absence of attachment to a primary care provider.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".