Development of a periodic health examination form for the frail elderly in long-term care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create an evidence-based periodic health examination (PHE) form geared to long-term care (LTC) residents. DESIGN: Two-phase study: literature review to develop a quantitative, cross-sectional, self-administered survey, and administration of the survey followed by a focus group. A PHE form for LTC residents was developed based on participants' recommendations. SETTING: Hamilton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 106 health care professionals completed the survey; 10 LTC physicians participated in the focus group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The items deemed most important and most likely to be performed during a PHE; themes from focus group discussions. RESULTS: Respondents' top 4 most important PHE items were also the top 4 items they thought were most likely to be performed during a PHE in LTC: reviewing active health status, reviewing pain control, reviewing medications, and screening for falls. Thematic analysis from the focus group discussion generated 3 main themes: current physician perspectives on the existing annual health examination in LTC, conceptual ideas for the new PHE form, and physician perspectives on the optimization of care in LTC settings. The findings from the survey, along with the themes from the focus group, were incorporated to create a PHE form for LTC residents. CONCLUSION: The proposed PHE form emphasizes tracking a patient's functional course over time and combines evidence-based preventive health interventions and health assessments with what is clinically important for LTC.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".