Applying Newly Identified Financially Focused Home Care Quality and Performance Indicators In Alberta's $23.5B/annum Health System - Preliminary Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through a multi-phased mixed-method research program including an international scoping review and a modified-Delphi panel with expert policy/academic/operational representatives from across Canada, three health-system, financially focused quality and performance home care indicators were identified. This presentation will provide preliminary results of the application of the three financial indicators on overall health-system measures, system utilization and population outcomes within the province of Alberta. The time-period covered is the last five years data leading up to the start of the deceleration of the covid-19 global pandemic. Based on provincial annual financial reporting, baseline 2016/17 fiscal year home care expenditures were $585K, this rose to significantly to $716M for fiscal year 2019/20, with the most significant increase (13%) occurred between the 2017/18 and 2018/19 years. Prior to 2016/17 home care expenditures increased at a rate less than 3%. These significant home care investments increased the percent of the overall expenditures in Alberta from 3.94 to 4.6%. Furthermore, the average annual expenditures per home care client rose from $5,417 to $6,112. During this same time-period, numerous health-system indicators shifted to more favorable positions, with notable decreases in acute care days prior to death, number of those waiting in hospital for LTC, and preventing/delaying the need for LTC overall. Based on comparisons of home care investments on the overall health-system and key health-system performance indicators focused on measuring system efficiencies, preliminary examinations suggest that significant home care focused investments in Alberta significantly improved health-system performance, efficiencies, and overall outcomes for the population.
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 | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".