MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011638816 · doi:10.1097/nhh.0b013e318246dd53

The Effect of Nurse Practitioner Practice in Home Care on Emergency Department Visits for Homebound Older Adult Patients

2012· article· en· W2011638816 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tony K. C. Tung, Judith Kaufmann, Elizabeth K. Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Healthcare Nurse · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSaskatoon City Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineIntervention (counseling)Family medicineNurse practitionersDescriptive statisticsTest (biology)Emergency medicineMedical emergencyNursingHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of nurse practitioners (NPs) in home care on emergency department (ED) usage in Canada has not been documented in the literature. This article discusses the potential impact of care provided by NPs on ED use for home care patients in Canada. The authors used a 2-group prospective design for this pilot study to compare the number of ED visits in home care patients followed by NPs (intervention group, n = 30) with those receiving usual care and not followed by NPs (control group, n = 9). Data were collected by accessing provincial electronic medical records at the time of recruitment and at 3 additional time points: 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. Descriptive statistics and the z-test of 2 proportions were used to compare the 2 groups. The authors found more ED visits were documented in the control group than in the intervention group at 2 and 4 weeks, but not at 8 weeks. Six subjects dropped out in the intervention group and 1 in the control group during the study due to death. The number of ED visits was reduced at 2 and 4 weeks in the intervention group, but there was no significant difference in the death rates between the 2 groups. This study serves as a springboard for future studies of NPs in home care in Canada.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Healthcare NurseSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207