Identification of seniors at risk: process evaluation of a screening and referral program for patients aged ≥75 in a community hospital emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports on the authors' experience with a patient safety quality improvement program, intended to reduce the incidence and severity of adverse outcomes for emergency department (ED) patients aged > or = 75. The Identification of Seniors at Risk scale was used for screening, and those at high risk were referred for appropriate intervention. The plan-do-study-act improvement cycle was followed, conducting process evaluation to diagnose and correct implementation difficulties. Reports that: implementing an ED screening and referral program is deceptively difficult; process evaluation multidisciplinary working group meetings are an essential improvement tool; screening inclusion criteria had to be adapted to the subject population in order to make efficient use of staff time; the screening questions and process required ongoing assessment, revision, and local adaptation in order to be useful; and high-risk screening in the ED is critical to a hospital system's ability to anticipate clinical problems; the plan-do-study-act improvement cycle is a practical and useful tool for improving quality and systems in a real care setting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".