MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810123833 · doi:10.1177/0840470418773108

Delivering improved patient and system outcomes for hospitalized older adults through an Acute Care for Elders Strategy

2018· article· en· W2810123833 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samir K. Sinha, Jocelyn Bennett, Rebecca Ramsden, Joanne Bon, Tyler Chalk

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute careMedicineOlder peopleAcute hospitalIntervention (counseling)Continuum of careEmergency medicineHealth careGerontologyMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute care hospitals are widely recognized as potentially high-risk environments for older adults. In 2010, Mount Sinai Hospital conceived its Acute Care for Elders (ACE) Strategy as a multi-component intervention to improve the care of hospitalized older adults. In order to determine its effectiveness, we conducted a quasi-experimental time series analysis of 12,008 older patients admitted non-electively for acute medical issues over a 6-year period. Despite a 53% increase in annual admissions of older patients between 2009/2010 and 2014/2015, Mount Sinai decreased total lengths of stay and readmissions and reduced the direct cost of care per patient, leading to net savings of CDN$4.2 million in 2014/2015. This article presents Mount Sinai's ACE Strategy and discusses the benefits of implementing integrated evidence-based models across the continuum of care and how it is supporting the implementation of ACE Strategy models of care and care practices across Canada and beyond.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207