MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404808636 · doi:10.1370/afm.22.s1.6372

Using a typology to understand and address primary care administrative workload in Atlantic Canada

2024· article· en· W4404808636 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruth Lavergne, Catherine Moravac, Myles Leslie, Lindsay Hedden, Julie Easley, Fiona Bergin, Melanie Mooney

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTypologyWorkloadPrimary careComputer scienceOperations researchRegional scienceGeographyEngineeringArchaeologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Administrative activities, including work related to caring for individual patients and clinic administration, may play a substantial role in understanding changes to primary care workload. Objective The objective of the qualitative component of this mixed methods study was to conduct interviews with family physicians, nurse practitioners, and administrative team members providing primary care: i) to describe their current experiences of administrative workload, ii) to understand how administrative workload has changed over time, and iii) to explore strategies that might be utilized to streamline processes and reduce the volume of administrative work. Study Design & Analysis We used a screening questionnaire to purposively select interview participants. Interviews were approximately one hour in duration and were conducted via Zoom. We followed Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflective thematic analysis, which fit well with our critical qualitative approach and relativist epistemology. Setting and Population Studied Interviewees were primary care providers and administrative staff representing a range of payment models, a variety of clinic models, from both urban and rural locations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Intervention Thirty-six (36) interviews were conducted by one qualitative researcher. Qualitative interpretation and analysis involved representatives from each stakeholder group. Results/Findings Information management is central to health care delivery, but often not valued or actively supported. Within primary care most administrative work requires both information management and clinical judgment. Therefore, we developed a typology as part of the analysis. Participants recommended electronic medical record connectivity with other parts of the health system, pre-population of information on forms from patient charts, changes to insurance and disability forms, re-distribution of administrative tasks, assistance with overhead expenses, improved training for administrative staff, development of competencies and guidelines for clinic operations, and other actions. Conclusion Identifying practical strategies to make information management more efficient can support innovative healthcare models, improve patient care, and improve the wellbeing of primary care providers.

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)0.014
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→