MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417296749 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.017

17 Understanding the ‘Overview Section’ of care plans for children with medical complexity

2025· article· en· W4417296749 on OpenAlexaff
Nazeefah Laher, Blossom Dharmaraj, Sherri Adams, Julia Orkin

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Descriptive statisticsSick childHealth careDescriptive researchPlan (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Children with medical complexity (CMC) are characterized by chronic complex conditions, technology dependence, and high healthcare utilization across home, hospital, and community. CMC followed by the Complex Care Program at The Hospital for Sick Children are given a Care Plan, which is a comprehensive, collaborative, written document to support and streamline the coordination of care. The overview section in the Care Plan is free text section where patients and families can incorporate holistic aspects of the child. Objectives The purpose of this study was to analyze the overview section of Care Plans of CMC to assess how they are currently used to understand the child holistically. Design/Methods A mixed methods study using a retrospective review of Care Plans of all patients enrolled in the Complex Care Program at The Hospital for Sick Children as of December 31, 2021. Study methodology included: (1) descriptive demographic data (age, sex, presence of a photo in the patient chart), (2) descriptive analysis of expressive writing (e.g., punctuation, CAPS LOCK, emojis) and wordcount of the overview section, (3) content analysis using interpretive description of the overview section of Care Plans whereby codes were generated to inform themes. Results A total of 325 patient charts of CMC were reviewed. The mean age of children included was 7.8-years-old (range: 9-months-old to 18 years-old) and the biological sex distribution was 43 percent female and 57 percent male. Fifty-eight percent of Care Plans had a photo. The average word count of the overview section was 70 (rang of 6 – 330). The descriptive analysis of the overview section captures the use of expressive writing (CAPS LOCK, exclamation, asterisk, vocalization/expression) to draw attention to a word or phrase or emphasize a point. Or content analysis revealed four central themes: (1) child as a whole, (2) caregiver as a whole, (3) living arrangement and family structure, and (4) child’s care needs. Conclusion Our findings suggest that the overview section of Care Plans has a broad purpose. While it is often used to provide holistic information about the child that goes beyond their medical needs, it is also used as a host for many other items pertaining to the child and their care. The overview section has potential to highlight non-medical aspects of the child and facilitate a greater understanding of the child to support patient centred care.

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)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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 venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→