MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149689544 · doi:10.5430/jha.v3n3p1

A structured home visit program by non-licensed healthcare personnel can make a difference in the management and readmission of heart failure patients

2013· article· en· W2149689544 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Craig J. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hospital Administration · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studyHealth careMedical emergencyProtocol (science)NursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this observational study is to evaluate the effectiveness of structured home visits by non-licensed healthcare personnel (NLHP) on the patient’s adherence to a medication plan, dietary restrictions, and knowledge about when to seek care. This descriptive, qualitative study evaluates the Grand-Aide ® program that aids in the management of heart failure patients across the continuum of care using NLHP. Patients are offered enrollment in the program starting the day following hospital discharge. Visit frequency is high immediately after discharge and lessens over time as the patient’s health knowledge and condition improve. During the visits, NLHP record vital signs including weight, ask the patient protocol questions in a Yes/No format, record and report responses to the supervising Nurse Practitioner, reinforce discharge teaching, and review medications. Preliminary findings from this project provide information about issues found while providing home-visiting services to patients with heart failure. Early recognition of these issues allows for early treatment or correction, preventing further deterioration that could lead to readmission. Programs like this can be an integral part of the health care system that manages patient’s care across the continuum, with intensive focus immediately after hospital discharge.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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