MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408747756 · doi:10.1111/inm.70025

Optimising Scopes of Practice and Team‐Based Collaborative Care Through Task‐Shifting and Task‐Sharing in Mental Health—A Collaborative Patient Care (<scp>CPC</scp>) Initiative

2025· article· en· W4408747756 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Lok, Sarah Kipping, Sanaz Riahi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthRecreationTask (project management)NursingCollaborative CarePsychologyWork (physics)Health careMedical educationMedicineEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Team-based collaborative models utilise a broad range of healthcare clinicians that practise at the top of their licence, while proactively redistributing shared work through task-shifting, offering meaningful ways to contribute to patient care while ensuring high-quality outcomes. A mental health hospital in Canada embarked on a Collaborative Patient Care (CPC) initiative to optimise skill and skill mix of interdisciplinary inpatient teams. Implementation science, specifically the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework, was utilised to guide the project. Following qualitative and quantitative syntheses, analyses and stakeholder engagement, CPC re-imagined team-based care by restructuring one clinical team of recreational therapy and introduced 26 new positions to infuse across the organisation, including new disciplines of rehabilitation assistant, geriatric physiotherapist, occupational therapists and bachelor of social work roles, while recruiting for more child and youth workers, recreational therapists, secretaries, psychologists, behavioural therapists and personal support workers. Scopes of work were defined to support differences (i.e., between Registered Nurses (RN) and Registered Practical Nurses (RPN)) while team responsibilities were designed to support shared practices. An educational upskilling plan was implemented to support unregulated and regulated clinicians to perform at the level of the new model. At the time of this paper, CPC is immersed in its Sustainment stage. CPC represents a comprehensive plan aimed at enhancing patient care through service efficiencies and optimising resource allocation. It is anticipated that the implementation of CPC will contribute to a shared vision for a better future where patients (and families) receive the right care at the right time by the right clinician.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0040.018
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.443 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health NursingSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207