Chatham-Kent Ontario Health Team's Patient and Family Advisor Engagement Initiatives For Improving Person-Centred Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient engagement and partnership has been an overall priority for Chatham-Kent Ontario Health Team (CKOHT) since 2020, and as a key component for co-designing a local patient-centred health system.CKOHT has had a Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) for over 3 years who has been involved in the design, implementation and evaluation of local health care improvements and clinical initiatives. This work has been guided by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)'s Spectrum for Engagement to engage patient advisors in projects and initiatives by: Informing, Consulting, Involving, Collaborating, and/or Empowering their participation.Patient and Family Advisory Council members participate on all Working Groups and many Action Teams to provide advisement and contributions to bring the patient voice to fully participate in CKOHT co-design discussions and decisions being made. 00% of CKOHT Working Groups have PFAC representation or representation from community members with lived experience to ensure person-centered care in all aspects of what we do. We emphasize PFAC motto of "Nothing About Us, Without Us" to engage with patient advisors in the full spectrum of planning, implementation and evaluation stages of our work. CKOHT has utilized the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) developed by McMaster University for the past 3 years to evaluate the patient advisors' experience in participating in the PFAC.PFAC members were surveyed using the PPEET which found the following high level results: High satisfaction rate and overall excellent engagement participating in the PFACDedicated CKOHT staff and administrative support is key for high PFAC engagement. PFAC members feel valued, respected, listened to, and influential in their patient advisor roleThese results allowed CKOHT and the PFAC to reflect and learn about challenges and opportunities with ongoing engagement and collaboration for the PFAC within the CKOHT governance structure.The CKOHT has had a PFAC for three years+ dedicated to co-designing tasks, projects and initiatives - from providing feedback on community navigation, to participating in storytelling, to providing input on patient pathways, and designing evaluation surveys. Key learnings in this patient engagement work include: preferred communication methods with patient advisors, support for patient and family advisory councils, as well as overall strategies for patient engagement.Patient advisors are key to Ontario Health Teams ongoing system-level engagement which integrates with clinical quality improvement initiatives and addresses patient experience of care. CKOHT will continue to advance and progress with patient advisors co-designing collaborative clinical improvement initiatives at the local level.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.003 |
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".