MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031629620 · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2020.04.004

A Canadian Cohort Study to Evaluate the Outcomes Associated with a Multicenter Initiative to Reduce Antipsychotic Use in Long-Term Care Homes

2020· article· en· W3031629620 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John P. Hirdes, Jennifer Major, Selma Didic, Christine Quinn, Lori Mitchell, Jonathan H. Chen, Micaela Jantzi, Kaye Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWinnipeg Regional Health AuthorityCanadian Foundation for Healthcare ImprovementCanadian Standards AssociationRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement
KeywordsMedicineAntipsychoticLong-term careIntervention (counseling)CohortHealth carePopulationQuality of life (healthcare)GerontologyCohort studyOddsFamily medicineSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Environmental healthPsychiatryNursingLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a multicenter intervention to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use in Canadian nursing homes at the individual and facility levels. DESIGN: Longitudinal, population-based cohort study to evaluate the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement's Spreading Healthcare Innovations Initiative to reduce potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use in 6 provinces/territories. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults in nursing homes in 6 provinces/territories in Canada between 2014 and 2016. The sample involved 4927 residents in 45 intervention homes and 122,570 residents in 1193 control homes in the first quarter of the study. MEASURES: Assessment data based on the Resident Assessment Instrument 2.0 were used in both settings to track antipsychotic use and to obtain risk-adjusters for a quality indicator on potentially inappropriate use. INTERVENTION: Quality improvement teams in participating organizations were provided with education, training, and support to implement localized strategies intended to reduce antipsychotic medication use in residents without diagnosis of psychosis. RESULTS: At the resident level, we found that the odds of remaining on potentially inappropriate antipsychotics were 0.75 in intervention compared with control homes after adjusting for age, sex, aggressive behavior, and cognition. These findings were evident within the pooled Canadian data as well as within provinces. At the facility level, the intervention homes had greater improvements in risk-adjusted quality indicator performance than the control homes, and this was true for the worst, median, and best-performing homes at baseline. There was no major change in the quality indicator for worsening of behavior symptoms. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement intervention was associated with a reduction in potentially inappropriate antipsychotic use at both the individual and facility levels of analysis. This improvement in performance was independent of secular trends toward reduced antipsychotic use in participating provinces. This suggests that substantial improvements in medication use may be achieved through targeted, collaborative quality improvement initiatives in long-term care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Directors AssociationSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207