MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988638286 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igz038.2534

A FRAMEWORK FOR CARE TRANSITIONS FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH COMPLEX HEALTH CONDITIONS

2019· article· en· W2988638286 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul Stolee, Jacobi Elliott, Kerry Byrne, Joanie Sims‐Gould, Catherine Tong, Bert M. Chesworth, Mary Egan, Dorothy Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of British ColumbiaLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionHealth careNursingDocumentationTransitional careFocus groupQualitative researchService providerMedicinePsychologyGerontologyService (business)SociologyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For older adults with complex health conditions, transitions between care settings are common and a major risk to quality of care and patient safety. Care transition interventions have shown positive impacts on continuity of care and health service use, however, most require additional human resources (e.g., transition coach), focus on one transition or “handoff”, and provide support for individual patients without addressing underlying challenges of health system integration. We sought to develop a framework for system-level enhancements to care transitions for older adults. We report a secondary framework analysis of an ethnographic investigation (the “InfoRehab” project) of care transitions for older persons who had experienced a hip fracture. The ethnographic study involved interviews, observations, and document reviews for 23 patients, 19 family caregivers, and 92 health care providers. Data were collected at each transition point (1-4/patient) along the care continuum, at three Canadian sites (large urban, mid-size urban, rural). Our framework analysis followed the approach described by Gale et al. (2013), using as cases 12 peer-reviewed papers which had reported InfoRehab results. Two researchers coded findings from each paper, then developed an analytical framework of eight themes by consensus; these include: patient involvement and choice, family caregiver involvement, patient complexity, health care provider coordination, information sharing, documentation, system constraints, and relationships. NVivo 11 was used to index findings into these themes and to generate a matrix. We are working with system stakeholders, including patients and caregivers, to apply this framework in the development of improved systems for care transitions.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.455
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

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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207