MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887701182 · doi:10.1080/17538157.2018.1496090

Using integrated technology to create quality care for older adults: a feasibility study

2018· article· en· W2887701182 on OpenAlex
Rima C. Tarraf, Esther Suter, Mubashir Arain, Arden Birney, Omenaa Boakye, Pierre Boulanger, Cheryl A Sadowski

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformatics for Health and Social Care · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Frailty Network
KeywordsTimelineMedicineData collectionMedical emergencyLimitingHealth careNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Slow changes in older adults' health status are often not detected until they escalate. Our aim was to understand if e-technology can enhance the safety and quality of older adult care by detecting changes in health status early. METHODS: E-technology was implemented with 30 seniors in an assisted living facility. We used wireless devices to monitor blood pressure, oxygen saturation, weight, and hydration. This 1-year feasibility study included: a readiness assessment, procuring devices, developing an alert software, training staff, and weekly monitoring for several months. RESULTS: Analysis of service utilization data showed no significant differences in number of emergency or hospital visits between the intervention and control group. Qualitative data suggested residents were satisfied with the e-technology. Among staff, several saw value in weekly monitoring, however staff emphasized the need for devices to be suitable for older adults. CONCLUSION: It is imperative that researchers work with facilities to ensure there is value-added in implementing new technology. Staff feedback helped fine-tune devices, training materials, and measurement process. It took longer than anticipated to procure suitable devices, set up the software, and recruit residents, thus limiting data collection. Future studies should dedicate more time to implementation and propose longer timelines.

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.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.386 · 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