MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413358462 · doi:10.5334/ijic.nacic24212

Building of a Learning Health System surrounding Hospital Discharge: A toolbox for Sustainable Metrics from Implementation to Evaluation and Emulation

2025· article· en· W4413358462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Hyc

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEvaluation and Performance Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToolboxEmulationEngineering managementComputer scienceHealth careProcess managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringPsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Integrated healthcare delivery systems which meaningfully address patientsneeds as they transition between acute care and home/community supports can achieve the quintuple aims, leading to improved experience and health outcomes. Minimum datasets rooted in high quality, cross-sectoral and patient-centered outcomes can help direct continuous improvement and ensure sustainability of these integrated care systems. Since 209, in Toronto, Ontario, University Health Network (UHN) Integrated Care (IC) program has been enrolling and linking patients and their caregivers, post-discharge, to home and community supports through one point of contact (i.e., an IC lead) and 24/7 phone support line. As the program expands within and beyond our hospital, our aim was to create a feasible, standardized minimum dataset that addresses all ten Ontario quality standards and Alberta Home to Hospital to Home guidelines on care transitions and the quintuple aims to help inform learning health systems. ApproachOur primary objective was to create and test the feasibility of a minimum dataset (MDS) that could be used for continuous program evaluation. The construction of the MDS involved a mixed methods approach that incorporated chart-level and program-specific data and qualitative interviews with patients and providers. Our secondary objective was to test this MDS as a learning health system for all patients enrolled in the program during the first 4 years of implementation. Through the use of chart, program-specific and hospital level data collection data was harnessed for 3075 patients enrolled in the program between June , 209 and May 30, 2023. Stakeholders including patient and caregiver partners, institutional and program leaders, and provincial policy leads helped inform the selection, use, and dissemination of the metrics for continuous program refinement and sustainability of ongoing program evaluation. ImplicationsNotable strengths that served as accelerants for the program evaluation included harnessing hospital-level chart data, homecare and program specific data through shared data records. Low response rate (%) to CIHI Canadian Patient Experience- Inpatient Care survey led the team to use a modified patient experience survey along with qualitative interviews. Site-specific data needed further linkage to provincial administrative data to allow for comparison with controls, and to fully evaluate impact beyond the institution where the program was implemented. Additionally, low or incomplete response on language, gender, race and income equity and diversity measures when admitted to hospital led to manual chart review for ascertainment. Moving forward, the scalability of health equity and patient experience data along with greater information sharing across sites and teams must be addressed. Use of AI and machine learning for extrapolating chart level sociodemographic data may help capture health equity data. Systems that meaningfully engage with patients, caregivers, hospital, community and policy stakeholders to harness linkages between patient and corporate values are an essential component to building a Learning Health System, and play a significant role in building sustainable and prospective program evaluation for integrated care models surrounding hospital admissions.

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)0.229
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.254
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2290.254
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0170.021
Open science0.0070.024
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.435 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 CareSame topicEvaluation and Performance AssessmentFrench-language works237,207