South Winnipeg Integrated Geriatric Program (SWING): A Rapid Community-Response Program for the Frail Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to compare enhanced access to geriatric assessment and case management to usual home care service provision for the frail elderly. This was a demonstration project, with randomized allocation to control or intervention groups of frail elderly persons who had been referred to the Home Care service in Winnipeg. Of the 164 persons who were randomized, 78 intervention and 74 control patients were evaluated. Intervention subjects received a multidimensional assessment as soon as possible by a specially trained coordinator, who had enhanced access to geriatric medical and day-hospital services; intervention patients were case managed for a 3-month period. Control cases received usual care from home care coordinators. The intervention group received significantly faster assessment and deployment of home services, as well as greater utilization of the geriatric day-hospital services. Utilization of emergency room and hospital services was similar for both groups. Control subjects experienced more prolonged hospital stays and a significantly higher proportion (23%) were designated for long-term care than of intervention clients (9%). We conclude that the SWING program, which facilitated access to geriatric services and case management, reduced or delayed the need for long-term care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".