The performance of health systems and hospitals in Canada: Studies on outcomes measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scrutiny on the performance of health systems and hospitals in Canada has increased in recent years. Progress has been made away from more rudimentary measures of resources and output performance towards more meaningful measures of outcomes. However, health system and hospital performance outcome measures have inherent limitations and deficiencies to accurately and adequately reflect their contribution towards the realization of health in populations and patients. This dissertation is composed of five research questions and resultant studies on outcomes-based measurement in the Canadian health system and hospital contexts. The specific research questions of this thesis are: 1. What is outcomes measurement and its state of use in Canada? 2. How are health system and hospital performance indicators evaluated and prioritized? 3. What is the validity and impact of the palliative care code on the Hospital Standardised Mortality Ratio (HSMR) indicator? 4. What are the performance trends on hospital outcome indicators? 5. What is the degree of association between hospital performance outcome indicators? The findings of this dissertation pose additional areas of research necessary to better understand and utilize health outcome measures. This dissertation also raises important policy considerations both in terms of gaps in practice for optimizing and introducing health outcome measures, but also for critical review of existing policies and governance models that rely on and involve select outcome measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".