MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979510589 · doi:10.1186/1471-2318-9-34

Quality of care assessment in geriatric evaluation and management units: construction of a chart review tool for a tracer condition

2009· review· en· W1979510589 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie‐Jeanne Kergoat, Bernard‐Simon Leclerc, Nicole Leduc, Judith Latour, Katherine Berg, Aline Bolduc

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Geriatrics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMinistère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (Québec)Institut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineReliability (semiconductor)ChartQuality managementMultidisciplinary approachAcute careQuality assuranceMedical recordGeriatricsQuality (philosophy)Health careMedical emergencyNursingOperations managementManagement systemStatisticsPsychiatryExternal quality assessmentPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The number of elderly people requiring hospital care is growing, so, quality and assessment of care for elders are emerging and complex areas of research. Very few validated and reliable instruments exist for the assessment of quality of acute care in this field. This study's objective was to create such a tool for Geriatric Evaluation and Management Units (GEMUs). METHODS: The methodology involved a reliability and feasibility study of a retrospective chart review on 934 older inpatients admitted in 49 GEMUs during the year 2002-2003 for fall-related trauma as a tracer condition. Pertinent indicators for a chart abstraction tool, the Geriatric Care Tool (GCT), were developed and validated according to five dimensions: access to care, comprehensiveness, continuity of care, patient-centred care and appropriateness. Consensus methods were used to develop the content. Participants were experts representing eight main health care professions involved in GEMUs from 19 different sites. Items associated with high quality of care at each step of the multidisciplinary management of patients admitted due to falls were identified. The GCT was tested for intra- and inter-rater reliability using 30 medical charts reviewed by each of three independent and blinded trained nurses. Kappa and agreement measures between pairs of chart reviewers were computed on an item-by-item basis. RESULTS: Three quarters of 169 items identifying the process of care, from the case history to discharge planning, demonstrated good agreement (kappa greater than 0.40 and agreement over 70%). Indicators for the appropriateness of care showed less reliability. CONCLUSION: Content validity and reliability results, as well as the feasibility of the process, suggest that the chart abstraction tool can gather standardized and pertinent clinical information for further evaluating quality of care in GEMU using admission due to falls as a tracer condition. However, the GCT should be evaluated in other models of acute geriatric units and new strategies should be developed to improve reliability of peer assessments in characterizing the quality of care for elderly patients with complex conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.067
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0670.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC GeriatricsSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207