The power of partnership: Strategies for pan-Canadian spread and scale of paramedics providing palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paramedics and Palliative Care is an example of a promising practice ("pilot") that underwent successful spread and scale across Canada. Through the support of two pan-Canadian health organizations and concurrent evolution of the profession of paramedicine, this innovation has become integrated into practice. Evaluation of the innovation sites showed positive impact in all elements of the Quintuple Aim, and data from the expansion sites mirrors this success. Paramedic comfort and confidence is improved. Patient and family satisfaction is high. Quality indicators such as time spent at home, and home deaths, improved after program launch. There are time and cost savings with the program in place. The framework that enabled this spread and scale is presented and elaborated, to support further uptake of this innovation and provide a blueprint for successful expansion of other promising practices to support healthcare improvement across Canada.
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 | 0.052 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".