Introducing a Computerized Care‐Pathways System for Older Adults in Home‐Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introducing computerized care pathways for older adults living at home may be a promising way to improve the clinical dimension of integrated care. Evidence on how to implement them in various home‐care contexts is, however, sparse. A prospective, comparative multiple case study with nested analysis units was conducted across three home‐care settings. Participants included managers, healthcare professionals, and home‐care clients. We used a variety of frameworks and both qualitative and quantitative methods to understand the implementation process. The implementation research logic model (IRLM) presents links among determinants, strategies, mechanisms, and outcomes. Twelve barriers and 35 facilitators were similarly perceived, and 40 strategies were commonly adopted during implementation. After 12 months, OCCI implementation was feasible, appropriate, and acceptable at moderate‐to‐high levels. They were delivered with a moderate level of fidelity, but the level of penetration after 24 months was high. Participants perceived the OCCIs as supporting a holistic approach, good relationships, clinical decision‐making, information sharing, and interprofessional coordination, but not as much productivity and efficiency. Home‐care clients had a high level of satisfaction with health care and services. They were satisfied about their involvement in decision‐making and with computer use by professionals. We identified four causal pathways: engaging interest holders in a partnership model throughout the study; providing an information system that supports clinical processes; building a conducive environment with deliberate efforts to increase buy‐in and engagement; facilitating capacity and relationship building to increase adoption; and embedding the OCCIs in usual practice. The results illustrate how a real understanding of contexts was important to elucidate the mechanisms at work during this study. Adapting the innovation to achieve a better fit between it and the clinical contexts was fundamental. Positive outcomes relied on time, appropriated resources, and a continual, iterative process corresponding to “Make It Happen.”
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".