Implementing and Evaluating a New Mental Health and Substance Use Service Model at Island Health: Insights into Organizational Learning and Developmental Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This action research study followed the simultaneous implementation and evaluation of a new mental health and substance use (MHSU) service model at the Western Communities Service Hub (WC Hub), a Colwood, BC-based program and facility, established by Island Health. Open in 2023, the WC Hub brings the integrated, team-based service model to southern Vancouver Island in seeking to expedite access, improve continuity of care and offer comprehensive close-to-home MHSU services for its clients, based in the fast-growing west shore of Greater Victoria, BC. Components of the service model are closely aligned with BC’s provincial Specialty Community Service Programs (SCSP) framework (BC Ministry of Health, Primary and Community Care Policy Branch, 2018; BC Office of the Premier, 2018) and the national Framework for Mental Health Strategy (Mental Health Commission of Canada, 2009, 2012), that emphasize improved access, flexible care delivery methods, single care plan, contact and responsible person, and patient-centered approaches.This research examined the program and its evaluation, both in developmental stages, happening alongside and in-response to each other, and tracked adaptive organizational learning (OL) (Bohmer & Edmondson, 2001) that a healthcare provider, such as Island Health, undergoes to implement and monitor a novel service model. It also queried whether developmental evaluation (DE) (Patton, 2016; Patton et al., 2015) provided a facilitating environment for that OL to occur throughout the inaugural year of the implementation. The study used the evaluation data in a secondary capacity, reinterpreting stakeholder interviews, surveys, and document analysis, for findings highlighting OL across all stages during the development, launch and monitoring of the WC Hub. Through reflection, the study assessed the larger impacts of the OL to the strategic workings of a healthcare body; and complex intra-organizational evaluative processes and their contributions towards innovating. Additionally, early SCSP implementation impacts were examined in the context of the WC Hub. The research contributes to literature on developmental evaluation in specialty health care and offers insights for organizations seeking to implement and evaluate complex service models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".