Il Modello di cura centrata sul paziente, sulla famiglia e sulla comunita: lo studio e l’esperienza dell’Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari di Trento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parole chiave: strategia, modello, patient centred care RIASSUNTO Obiettivi: Azienda Provinciale per i Servizi Sanitari lavora da sempre per garantire la soddisfazione dell’utenza e alti livelli di qualità all’interno dei propri servizi. In questi anni sono state realizzate importanti iniziative coerenti con l’approccio di Patient Centred Care (PCC). E’ stata avviata recentemente una progettazione aziendale per sistematizzare tutte le iniziative già in atto mettendo a fuoco una Strategia Aziendale ed un Modello unici per tutta la comunità. Metodi: è stata svolta una revisione delle prassi presenti in Azienda, una Revisione sistematica della letteratura su fonti pre-appraised ed un confronto con URP sui reclami pervenuti in Azienda per verificare il livello di soddisfazione dell’utenza rispetto alle singole iniziative PCC già presenti. Risultati: è emersa coerenza tra le azioni APSS e le strategie internazionali e nazionali in questo ambito, nonché un capitale professionale e di esperienze che hanno soddisfatto l’utenza e che possono costituire una base forte per il Modello e la Strategia aziendale futura. Conclusioni: APSS potrà procedere nella valutazione degli elementi strutturali, di processo, programmatori da attivare per realizzare la propria Strategia, essendo fondata su evidenze e prassi consolidate. Key words: strategy, model, patient centred care SUMMARY Objectives: the Healthcare Trust of the Autonomous Province of Trento (APSS) has always worked to ensure user satisfaction and high levels of quality within its services. In recent years, important initiatives have been carried out that are consistent with the Patient Centered Care (CCP) approach. A corporate planning has recently been launched to systematise all the initiatives already in place by focusing on a unique Strategy and Model for the whole community. Methods: a review of the practices present was carried out, a systematic review of the literature on pre-appraised sources and a comparison with URP on complaints to verify the level of user satisfaction was carried out. Results: consistency between APSS actions and international and national strategies in this area have emerged, as well as a professional and experience capital that has satisfied the users and that can form a strong basis for the Model and future Business Strategy. Conclusions: APSS will be able to proceed with the evaluation of the structural, process and programming elements to be activated in order to implement its own Strategy, being based on consolidated evidence and practices. Autore per la corrispondenza:ilaria.simonelli@apss.tn.it
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".