Improving Patient Prioritization During Hospital-Homecare Transition: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study of a Clinical Decision Support Tool Implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Homecare settings across the United States provide care to more than 5 million patients every year. About one in five homecare patients are rehospitalized during the homecare episode, with up to two-thirds of these rehospitalizations occurring within the first 2 weeks of services. Timely allocation of homecare services might prevent a significant portion of these rehospitalizations. The first homecare nursing visit is one of the most critical steps of the homecare episode. This visit includes an assessment of the patient's capacity for self-care, medication reconciliation, an examination of the home environment, and a discussion regarding whether a caregiver is present. Hence, appropriate timing of the first visit is crucial, especially for patients with urgent health care needs. However, nurses often have limited and inaccurate information about incoming patients, and patient priority decisions vary significantly between nurses. We developed an innovative decision support tool called Priority for the First Nursing Visit Tool (PREVENT) to assist nurses in prioritizing patients in need of immediate first homecare nursing visits. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the PREVENT tool on process and patient outcomes and to examine the reach, adoption, and implementation of PREVENT. METHODS: Employing a pre-post design, survival analysis, and logistic regression with propensity score matching analysis, we will test the following hypotheses: compared with not using the tool in the preintervention phase, when homecare clinicians use the PREVENT tool, high-risk patients in the intervention phase will (1) receive more timely first homecare visits and (2) have decreased incidence of rehospitalization and have decreased emergency department use within 60 days. Reach, adoption, and implementation will be assessed using mixed methods including homecare admission staff interviews, think-aloud observations, and analysis of staffing and other relevant data. RESULTS: The study research protocol was approved by the institutional review board in October 2019. PREVENT is currently being integrated into the electronic health records at the participating study sites. Data collection is planned to start in early 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods will enable us to gain an in-depth understanding of the complex socio-technological aspects of the hospital to homecare transition. The results have the potential to (1) influence the standardization and individualization of nurse decision making through the use of cutting-edge technology and (2) improve patient outcomes in the understudied homecare setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04136951; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04136951. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/20184.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.081 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".