Patient pathways in primary health care – an interview study across various health care personnel in a Canadian and a Norwegian county
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to demographic changes in the Western world governments emphasize the need for viable solutions, e.g. through decentralization of specialist health care services and better coordination within and between health care services. Both Norway and Canada have been through health care reforms and initiatives aiming to improve continuity and coordination of services. Organizational change to primary care in both countries encompasses both team-based service delivery involving allied health professionals, and new blended payment models. The objective of this study was to explore patient pathways in primary healthcare from various health personnel's perspectives, and across various primary care organizations in Norway and Canada. METHODS: The study had a qualitative design, including interviews with physicians, nurses and managers (n = 19) in primary care, from a county in Norway and a region in Canada. Data were analyzed with a thematic approach, in line with recommendations from Braun & Clarke. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: 1) Structural challenges, 2) Towards a more specialized primary health care and 3) Dedication could improve continuity. Findings indicate that coordinating health care services was assumed difficult due to different health care levels, funding systems, managements, electronic record systems and organizations. Hospitals were assumed more task oriented, while primary health care services were considered more care oriented, and this challenged the coordination across organizations. Primary care services were perceived to be more and more specialized, also representing a threat for coordination and continuity. Health care personnel in both countries perceived that dedicated personnel for each patient could improve information flow and continuity across services. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving continuity and coordination of health care services seems challenging. Integration strategies seem essential for reducing silo thinking and fragmentation of health care services.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".