MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2911727583 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211024

Safe and effective person- and family-centered care practices during transitions from hospital to home—A web-based Delphi technique

2019· article· en· W2911727583 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chantal Backman, Sharon Johnston, Nelly D. Oelke, Katharina Kovacs Burns, Linda Hughes, Wendy Gifford, Jeanie Lacroix, Alan J. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health InformationCanadian Patient Safety InstituteUniversity of AlbertaBruyèreUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Patient Safety InstituteRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
KeywordsDelphiWorld Wide WebMedicineDelphi methodWeb applicationFamily centered careNursingComputer scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that adverse events during care transitions from hospital to home can have a significant impact on patients' outcomes, leading to readmission, delayed healing or even death. Gaps exist in the ways of monitoring care during transition periods and there is a need to help organizations better implement and monitor safe person-and family-centered care. Value statements are a way to obtain narratives in lay terms about how well care, treatment and support is organized to meet the needs and preferences of patients/families. The purpose of this study was to identify the value statements that are perceived by decision-makers and patients/families to best signify safe person- and family-centered care during transitions from hospital to home. METHODS: Between January and September 2017, a web-based Delphi was used to survey key stakeholders in acute care and home care organizations across Canada. RESULTS: Decision-makers (n = 22) and patients/families (n = 24) from five provinces participated in the Delphi. Following Round 1, 45 perceived value statements were identified. In Round 2, consensus was received on 33/45 (73.3%) by decision-makers, and 30/45 (66.7%) by patients/families. In Round 3, additional value statements reached consensus in the decision-makers' survey (3) and in the patients/families' survey (2). A total of 30 high priority value statements achieved consensus derived from both the decision-makers' and patients/families' perspectives. CONCLUSION: This study was an important first step in identifying key consensus-based priority value statements for monitoring care transitions from the perspective of both decision-makers and patients/families. Future research is needed to test their usability and to determine whether these value statements are actually suggestive of safe person-and family-centered care transition interventions from hospital to home.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→