MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409337348 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic24279

Enhancing Care Transitions in Alberta: Measuring the Impact of Implementing a Provincial Clinical Information System on Hospital to Home Transitions

2025· article· en· W4409337348 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robin L. Walker, Tanmay Patil, Staci Hastings, Conshi Shi, Wanning Song, Scott Oddie, Judy Seidel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated careNursingBusinessMedicineHealth careEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Transitions between hospitals and primary care pose challenges, leading to increased mortality, morbidity, and high costs due to information loss. To improve patient safety during transitions, the World Health Organization emphasizes standardized discharge planning, better documentation, and enhanced Clinical Information Systems (CIS). Together, Alberta's newly implemented CIS “Connect Care” (CC) and the Primary Health Care Integration Network's (PHCIN) Home to Hospital to Home (H2H2H) Transitions Guideline and related metrics, aim to improve patient outcomes and system integration. Who is it for: Adults ≥18 years transitioning from hospital to home within Alberta's healthcare system. Engagement/Involvement: Engaged 750+ stakeholders in co-designing the Home to Hospital to Home (H2H2H) Transitions Guideline and related metrics, including patients, families, caregivers, and trans-disciplinary providers. Methods: This study utilizes provincial data on H2H2H transitions measures within acute care hospitals using CC from April 1, 2022 to March 31, 2023. Provincial data sources encompass CC, discharge abstract database, practitioner claims, and the national ambulatory care reporting system. The integration measures aim to comprehensively assess H2H2H care transitions provincially and strengthen ongoing improvement initiatives. Serving as pivotal indicators, they assess various components of the patient journey during transitions, including confirming the primary care provider at hospital discharge, utilizing the LACE Readmission Risk Index, ensuring timely discharge summaries, monitoring primary care physician follow-up, and evaluating unplanned hospital readmissions post-discharge. Key Findings: Results include discharges of Albertan adults from 47 sites that have implemented CC, totaling 98,108 discharges from hospitals to home/home with support. Nearly 80% of discharges listed a primary care provider. Less than 5% of discharge summaries included the LACE index. Approximately 90%, 91%, and 93% of discharge summaries were signed within 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively. Around 58% of moderate-risk and 52% of high-risk discharges had follow-up care within set timeframes. Readmission rates within 7, 14, and 30 days were below 4%, around 7%, and approximately 11%, respectively. Conclusion: The adoption of CC and H2H2H transition metrics enables provincial integrated care measurement in hospital-to-primary care transitions, emphasizing the need for enhancing risk index inclusion and high-risk discharge follow-up to further improve patient transitions. Ongoing initiatives are crucial for optimal patient outcomes and system integration in Alberta. International Relevance: The indicators employed in this study are potentially applicable to other health systems aiming to monitor hospital-to-home transitions in care. As countries strive to enhance patient safety during transitions, these standardized measures and metrics may offer valuable insights into establishing effective discharge planning, improving documentation, and bolstering electronic CIS. Next Steps: Continuing work involves devising additional integration metrics to enhance understanding and improve patient outcomes during hospital-to-home transitions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.395 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes→French-language works237,207→