MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573520435 · doi:10.1111/ggi.12538

Efficacy of emergency department‐based interventions designed to reduce repeat visits and other adverse outcomes for older patients after discharge: A systematic review

2015· review· en· W1573520435 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeriatrics and gerontology international/Geriatrics & gerontology international · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsWomen's College Hospital
FundersInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionCINAHLEmergency departmentReferralMEDLINEPopulationEmergency medicineFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: There is an urgent need for effective geriatric interventions to meet the health service demands of the growing older population. In this paper, we systematically review and update existing literature on interventions within emergency departments (ED) targeted towards reducing ED re-visits, hospitalizations, nursing home admissions and deaths in older patients after initial ED discharge. METHODS: Databases Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Web of Science were searched to identify all articles published up to June 2012 that focused on older adults in the ED, included a comparison group, and reported quantitative results in four primary outcomes: ED re-visits, hospitalizations, nursing home admissions and death after initial ED discharge. RESULTS: Of the 2826 titles screened, just nine studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies varied in their design and outcome measurements such that results could not be combined. Two trends surfaced: (i) more intensive interventions more frequently resulted in reduced adverse outcomes than did simple referral intervention types; and (ii) among the lowest intensity, referral-based interventions, studies that used a validated prediction tool to identify high-risk patients more frequently reported improved outcomes than those that did not use such a tool. CONCLUSION: Of the few studies that met the inclusion criteria, there was a lack of consistency and clarity in study designs and evaluative outcomes. Despite this, more intensive interventions that followed patients beyond a referral and the use of a clinical risk prediction tool appeared to be associated with improved outcomes. The dearth of rigorous evaluations with standardized methodologies precludes further recommendations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it