Inventory and characteristics of Canadian interhospital transfer coordination structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several studies have described interhospital transfer coordination structures in the US but there is a lack of data on Canadian coordination systems. We aimed to develop an inventory of existing interhospital coordinating structures across Canada and to detail how they operate in terms of governance, re-sources, tools, and processes. A cross-sectional survey was designed and ten managers/medical officials from seven coordination structures of interhospital transfers across Canada completed the survey. Findings indicate that coordination systems had similar communication modalities and covered similar services including the provision of medical advice. However, they differed in terms of the profile of staff processing transfers and transportation coordination. Mature structures such as Ontario and Alberta, who manage high annual volumes, distinguish themselves with very clear, standardized, and efficient processes, as well as implemented quality and performance improvement methods including key performance indicators. These results suggest that Canada may benefit from having an inter-provincial community of practice for interhospital transfer coordination structures to promote best practices, identify solutions, and harmonize services and processes. Better harmonization in transfer coordination would improve equity in the access to healthcare services. Future research should focus on the elaboration of evidence-and consensus-based guidelines that apply to the Canadian context.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".