355 PREDICTORS OF HOME SUPPORT SERVICES AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF MISMATCH BETWEEN ALLOCATED AND RECEIVED SERVICES IN COGNITIVELY-IMPAIRED OLDER ADULTS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Home support services aim to support older people to remain at home. Despite substantial investment in home support hours (€600 million), this has not translated into increased carers on the ground for older people. We aimed to report patterns of home support service utilisation in older patients with memory problems, and identify any mis-matches between allocated and received hours, and the impact on patients and caregivers. Methods Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients referred to community geriatric clinic from January 2021 to May 2022. 95/104 patients who were identified were suitable for inclusion. Results Participants had a median age of 82 (IQR 78-86) of whom 57% were female (n=54). 80% (n=76) were frail (CFS ≥4), with 82% dependent for IADLs (Lawton-Brody IADL Scale ≤6). Median MOCA score was 18, with 44% having moderate to severe cognitive impairment (MOCA ≤17). 40% of patients lived with alone (n=38). 52% (n=49) received formal home supports while 80% (n=76) had an informal carer. 37% (n=18) had a mismatch between hours allocated and hours received. There was a significant difference between median hours of care allocated (7) and median hours of care received (5), p <0.001. Increasing age and frailty, worsening cognitive and functional impairment and living status (living alone) predicted allocation of home supports. Patients who lived with family members were 3 times more likely not to receive allocated hours (OR 3.84 (95% CI 1.2–13.7)) Conclusion In this vulnerable population with cognitive and functional decline, just over half received formal home support hours. A large proportion experienced significant mismatch between allocated and received hours. Family and informal caregivers often have to fill gaps, adding to existing carer strain. Future models of home support should prioritise early intervention for people with IADL loss to remain independent at home and broaden of the scope of practice of carers to facilitate this.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».