The Belgian geriatric day hospitals as part of a care program for the geriatric patient: first results of the implementation at the national level.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In order to deliver individual, specialized and multidisciplinary care for older people, the Belgian national health authorities developed the care program for the geriatric patient. In that context, 48 geriatric day hospitals (GDHs) have been financed by the government since January 1st 2006. The main objective of this study is to describe the patient characteristics, facility features and activities related to the Belgian GDHs. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed from October 1st till December 31st 2006 in all 48 GDHs. For each GDH a transversal data collection was carried out. In the same period all patients scheduled for the GDHs were registered and followed for 3 months. Therefore two questionnaires were developed using Filemaker software: one for each GDH and one for each patient. There were no exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Six GDHs did not complete one or both questionnaires. Consequently, the results of 42 GDHs were included. GDHs with more years of activity had significantly more new patient contacts per day. Activities in the Belgian GDHs were mainly diagnostic with emphasis on geriatric syndromes and specific medical problems. The reason for admission to the GDH was often multifactorial. The syndromes that motivated patients 75 or older to visit the GDH were clearly geriatric (mainly cognitive disorders) and represent the principle public health problems in this age category. Despite the legal provision preserving GDHs for patients 75 years or older a quarter of all patients was younger than 75, presenting with a geriatric syndrome. The contribution of the general practitioners was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Activities in the Belgian GDHs are mainly diagnostic with emphasis on geriatric syndromes (particularly cognitive disorders) and specific medical problems. More information is needed on the knowledge and expectations of general practitioners in order to establish a closer collaboration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".