MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104609960 · doi:10.5430/jha.v4n2p30

Are we teaching our hospitalized patients self-management skills? Opportunities lost

2015· article· en· W2104609960 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Serena Miotto, Lynn McNicoll, Kristen Butterfield, Christina M. Rincón, Mriganka Singh, Stefan Gravenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPsychological interventionMedicineSkills managementIntervention (counseling)DemographicsNursingFamily medicineMedical educationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the U.S., 20% of medical hospital discharges are readmitted within 30 days. Non-medical intervention strategies, such as teaching four specific self-management skills, have demonstrated reduction in readmission risk by a third or more. Objective: To investigate whether hospitalized patients are taught or learn four basic self-management skills (“four skills”) during routine clinical encounters.Methods: Design: Observational study from May to October 2012 in an academic teaching hospital. Participants: Consenting medical patients (aged 18 or over), their visitors or caregivers and their providers. Unit managers identified patients who would be discharged home and capable of learning the four skills. Interventions: A trained observer consented patients and monitored every provider encounter for mentioning and/or teaching of the four specific self-management skills’ content for intervals of up to 6 hours during daytime shifts. After each encounter, the observer queried the patient and their caregiver to see what information relating to the four skills they retained and understood. Additionally, observers recorded patient demographics, native language, provider type, and major medical conditions present at the time of the encounter. Five control activities expected to occur routinely for each encounter were monitored for comparison. Main measures: Frequency of one of four self-management skill education events during patient-provider encounters.Results: We observed 56 patients over 326 encounters involving 117 physicians or medical students, 134 nurses or nursing students, and 163 hospital staff. Among 189 encounters with clinical staff (physicians or nurses), the four basic self-management skills were mentioned in 54 encounters (28.6%) but taught only in 12 encounters (6.3%). The comparison with control behaviors show a much higher proportion (hand washing 35%-41.3%, identified role 29.5%, asking for more question 19.1%). Physicians are more likely than nurses to discuss clinical conditions, medications, or any of the four skills’ topics. Specific self-management teaching of patients led to better understanding of the these skills compared to just mentioning them (p = .03).Conclusions: Hospital providers rarely teach four basic self-management skills as part of regular care. Patients can learn this content while hospitalized which could potentially reduce 30-day readmission risk.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hospital AdministrationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207