MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911313385 · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000571

Supplying Pharmacist Home Visit and Anticoagulation Professional Consultation During Transition of Care for Patients With Venous Thromboembolism

2019· article· en· W2911313385 on OpenAlexaff
Alok Kapoor, Valentina Landyn, Joann L. Wagner, Pamela Burgwinkle, Wei Huang, Joel M. Gore, Frederick A. Spencer, Robert J. Goldberg, David D. McManus, Chad E. Darling, Edwin D. Boudreaux, Bruce Barton, Kathleen M. Mazor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Safety · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePharmacistIntervention (counseling)Venous thromboembolismTransitional careFamily medicineMEDLINEPatient satisfactionHealth careNursingPharmacyThrombosisPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility, satisfaction, and effectiveness of a care transition intervention with pharmacist home visit and subsequent anticoagulation expert consultation for patients with new episode of venous thromboembolism within a not-for-profit health care network. METHODS: We randomized patients to the intervention or control. During the home visit, a clinical pharmacist assessed medication management proficiency, asked open-ended questions to discuss knowledge gaps, and distributed illustrated medication instructions. Subsequent consultation with anticoagulation expert further filled knowledge gaps. At 30 days, we assessed satisfaction with the intervention and also measured the quality of care transition, knowledge of anticoagulation and venous thromboembolism, and anticoagulant beliefs (level of agreement that anticoagulant is beneficial, is worrisome, and is confusing/difficult to take). RESULTS: The mean ± SD time required to conduct home visits was 52.4 ± 20.5 minutes and most patients agreed that the intervention was helpful. In general, patients reported a high-quality care transition including having been advised of safety issues related to medications. Despite that, the mean percentage of knowledge items answered correctly among patients was low (51.5 versus 50.7 for intervention and controls, respectively). We did not find any significant difference between intervention and control patients for care transition quality, knowledge, or anticoagulant beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: We executed a multicomponent intervention that was feasible and rated highly. Nevertheless, the intervention did not improve care transition quality, knowledge, or beliefs. Future research should examine whether alternate strategies potentially including some but not all components of our intervention would be more impactful.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient SafetySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207