Goal-Based Care Planning in Regional Geriatric Services for Older Persons Living with Frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults living with frailty represent a complex group who are increasingly accessing regional geriatric services. Goal-based care planning is the industry standard in the care of older adults, yet few studies illustrate how goal-based care planning is being conducted with this population. Understanding how frailty impacts goal-based care planning in regional geriatric services is key to improving patient care. METHODS: In this "Go-Along" method of data collection, nine observational experiences were conducted, nine responses from the Interprofessional Role Shadowing Tool were obtained, and eight responses to follow-up questions were received. Open coding of the data was performed retrospectively, and indexed themes were identified. RESULTS: Although the Geriatric Clinicians indicated that goal-based care planning and frailty were central to practice, the observations indicated no clear process to patient-centred goal-setting or frailty identification in practice. The results infer a gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. CONCLUSIONS: A clear process to goal-based care planning in interprofessional geriatric services is needed. This objective requires practical education that emphasizes the skills necessary to implement goal-setting within unique, interprofessional care environments. Further research is necessary to establish if frailty identification is necessary in goal-based care planning, or if a patient-centred approach is more advantageous in practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".