MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785505939 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2018.25385

Mending the Cracks: A Case Study in Using Technology to Assist with Transitional Care for Persons with Dementia

2017· article· en· W2785505939 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kim Ritchie, Andra Duff-Woskosky, Sarah Kipping

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaNursingMedicineMental healthPerspective (graphical)Quality (philosophy)Health carePsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitions between hospital and community are particularly challenging for vulnerable adults experiencing behavioural and psychological symptoms (BPSD) of dementia. Too often, miscommunication results in triggering a recurrence of disruptive behaviours leading to frustration of staff and families. As part of the implementation of Health Quality Ontario (HQO) Quality Standards, this project involved improving transitions using an electronic-based care plan on a 23-bed geriatric dementia unit in a mental health hospital. "My Dementia Careplan," is an interprofessional care plan that was developed in the electronic medical record (EMR) to enhance communication of information between healthcare providers when patients are being discharged to the community. It is written from the patient's perspective in collaboration with the family and interprofessional team. It describes strategies to manage behavioural challenges along with the standardized tools to objectively monitor progress. This care planning will help to support transition of knowledge between hospital and community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207