57 Improving Patient Centred Care On An Acute Older Persons Unit: A Quality Improvement Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Topic Improving patient centred care through the implementation of an occupational therapy assessment that is framed by ‘gold standard’ intervention of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E). Occupational therapy staff had limited knowledge of the CGA process. Intervention Implementation of an adapted occupational therapy assessment form that reflects the CMOP-E and addresses the domains of the CGA; using the Plan, Do, Study, Act methodology to support a sequential cycle of change over a three month period (Dec 2019 – Feb 2019). The form also addresses patient centred care and personalised care planning. An education session was undertaken with occupational therapy staff to increase the knowledge and understanding of the CGA process resulting in more effective participation in multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. Improvement The above intervention resulted in successful implementation of an adapted occupational therapy assessment form for older people addressing the domains of the CGA within the CMOP-E framework and encompassing patient centred care. Occupational therapy staff had increased confidence with their knowledge of the CGA and participation in MDT meetings and patients felt more involved in their care. Discussion It is possible to have both an evidenced MDT model of practice and a uni-professional occupational therapy model working alongside each other to provide patient centred care and effectively address the complex needs of frail, older people.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".