Implementation of Good Practice Guidelines for Person- and Family-Centered Care in Primary Health Care in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Person- and family-centered care has become a fundamental pillar of Primary Health Care (PHC), promoting active participation, effective communication, and respect for autonomy. In this context, an implementation experience with the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) Good Clinical Practice Guidelines (GCPG) was developed in a health center in Chile. Objective: To analyze the experience with the implementation of the GCPG "Person- and Family-Centered Care" at the Dr. Fernando Monckeberg Family Health Center (CESFAM). Methodology: A single-case study design was used. Data were collected through documentary analysis. The process was carried out in three phases, ensuring ethical feasibility and a thorough understanding of the phenomenon. Results: Three key GCPG recommendations were prioritized. Multi-format educational resources, a "Comprehensive Care Card," and a user satisfaction survey were developed. Eighty-two percent of staff were trained, and the survey was administered in 46 % of ECICEP check-ups. Ninety-six percent of respondents positively evaluated the care, with scores of 6 or 7 on a scale of 1 to 7. Discussion: Experience shows that it is possible to implement person-centered strategies in PHC, using evidence-based guidelines adapted to the local context. Challenges were identified, particularly with the coverage of user assessments. Conclusions: the intervention allowed for the integration of person-centered practices in a concrete and measurable way, generating valuable learning for future implementations in similar contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".