Improving How Caregivers of People Living With Dementia Are Identified in the Electronic Health Record: Qualitative Study and Exploratory Chart Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Family and unpaid caregivers play a crucial role in supporting people living with dementia; yet, they are not systematically identified and documented by health systems. Objective: The aims of the study are to determine the extent to which caregivers are currently identified and documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and to elicit the perspectives of caregivers and clinical staff on how to best identify, engage, and support caregivers of people living with dementia through the EHR. Methods: People with dementia were identified based on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes or dementia medications in the EHR. A chart review of people with dementia characterized how caregiver information was documented and whether caregivers had shared access to the patient portal. Caregivers of eligible people with dementia were then recruited through mailed letters and follow-up calls to the homes of people with dementia. We conducted semistructured interviews with caregivers, clinicians, and staff involved in the care of people with dementia within 2 health systems in Maryland and Colorado. Transcripts were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Results: Caregivers of people with dementia (N=22) were usually identified in the "contact information" or "patient contacts" tab (n=20, 91%) by their name and relation to the people with dementia; this tab did not specify the caregiver's role. Caregivers were also mentioned, and their roles were described to a varying degree in clinical notes (n=21, 96%). Of the 22 caregivers interviewed, the majority (n=17, 77%) reported that the people with dementia had additional caregivers. The presence of multiple caregivers could be gleaned from most charts (n=16, 73%); however, this information was not captured systematically, and caregivers' individual contributions were not explicitly recorded. Interviews with 22 caregivers and 16 clinical staff revealed two major themes: (1) caregiving arrangements are complex and not systematically captured or easy to locate in the EHR and (2) health systems should develop standardized processes to obtain and document caregiver information in the EHR. Conclusions: This exploratory chart review and qualitative interview study found that people with dementia frequently have multiple caregivers, whose roles and needs are captured inconsistently in the EHR. To address this concern, caregivers and clinical staff suggested that health systems should develop and test workflows to identify caregivers, assess their needs at multiple touchpoints, and record their information in extractable EHR fields.
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 | 0,029 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».