MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944545833 · doi:10.1111/ajag.12669

Saturday allied health services for geriatric evaluation and management: A controlled before‐and‐after trial

2019· article· en· W2944545833 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicholas F. Taylor, Katherine Lawler, Natasha K. Brusco, Casey L. Peiris, Katherine E. Harding, Grant Scroggie, Jude N. Boyd, Anita Wilton, Freya Coker, John G. Ferraro, Nora Shields

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal on Ageing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEastern Health
KeywordsStaffingMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyHealth servicesSignificant differenceNursingEmergency medicineSurgeryEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of Saturday allied health services on a geriatric evaluation and management ward. METHODS: A controlled before-and-after trial at two wards. Allied health services were added to usual weekday staffing on Saturdays for 6 months on the experimental ward. Length of stay, functional independence, readmissions, discharge destination and costs were evaluated at pre-intervention (N = 331) and intervention (N = 462). RESULTS: Relative to the comparison ward, the experimental ward had longer length of stay (mean 7.8 days, 95% CI 4.7-10.8), fewer readmissions (mean 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.6-5.7) and no difference in the proportion discharged home. Cost-effectiveness demonstrated no significant difference in cost ($2639, 95% CI $-386 to $5647) and functional independence gain (3.6 units, 95% CI 0.8-6.5) favouring the experimental ward. CONCLUSION: These findings do not support the provision of additional Saturday allied health services in geriatric evaluation and management to reduce length of stay.

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)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal on AgeingSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207