Assessment of older adults by emergency medical services: methodology and feasibility of a care partner Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CP-CGA).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is used in geriatric medicine as a means to manage the health care needs of older adults and to grade frailty. We modified the CGA so that it could be completed independently by care partners (usually family) and be used to grade frailty. Our objective was to examine the feasibility of a care partner completing the CGA at the time of the first prehospital encounter. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was conducted with a convenience sample of patients ≥ 70 years accompanied by a knowledgeable care partner. Feasibility was measured by the time required and percent completeness of items on the form based on completion by the care partner and by paramedic perception of utility. RESULTS: Subjects (N = 104) were enrolled with three postenrolment exclusions due to ineligibility. Most participants were older women living in their own home. The mean time to complete the questionnaire was 18.7 minutes (SD 11.3; median 15 minutes; interquartile range 12-20 minutes). Only 64% of the care partners recorded the time it took. Nineteen percent of paramedics completed a follow-up survey, and all felt screening for frailty was worthwhile and most (> 70%) thought that the CP-CGA may be a useful approach. The study was limited by recruitment bias of potentially eligible patients, a high level of missingness in the outcome measures of interest, and low paramedic participation rates. CONCLUSION: We observed a high rate of item completeness of questionnaires with a mean time to complete of 18.7 minutes in a convenience sample of older patients. A small sample of paramedics universally endorsed the utility of screening for frailty in the prehospital setting, and many thought the CP-CGA was a helpful tool.
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 | 0.032 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".