Assessing Risk among Frail Older Adults in Ontario, Canada, during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Telephone Outreach Program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We developed a pandemic telephone outreach protocol to identify risk for social isolation, health destabilization, medication issues, inadequate services and supports, and caregiver stress among older adults at high risk of destabilization. Screening, conducted between April 1, 2020, and May 8, 2020, was targeted to those who had previously been screened as frail or who were identified as vulnerable by their family physician. This study describes the implementation and results of this risk screening protocol and describes patient, caregiver, and health professional perceptions of this outreach initiative. Mixed methods included satisfaction surveys and interviews completed by patients/caregivers (N = 300 and N = 26, respectively) and health professionals (N = 18 and N = 9, respectively). A medical record audit collected information on patient characteristics and screening outcomes. A total of 335 patients were screened in the early weeks of the pandemic, of whom 23% were identified with at least one risk factor, most commonly related to the potential for health destabilization and medication risk. Follow-up referrals were made most frequently to physicians, a pharmacist, and a social worker. The outreach calls were very well received by patients and caregivers who described feeling cared for and valued at a time when they were socially isolated and lonely. The outreach calls provided access to trusted COVID-19 information and reassurance that health care was still available. The majority of health professionals (>86%) were “very” or “extremely” satisfied with the ease of completing the screening via telephone and value for time spent; for 79% the protocol was “very” or “extremely” feasible to implement. Health professional interviews revealed that patients were unaware they could access care during the pandemic lockdown but were reassured that care was available, potential crises were averted, and they supported future implementation. Risk screening provides a significant opportunity to provide information, support, and mitigate potential risks and is an important and feasible component of pandemic planning in primary care.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».