MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3107286538 · doi:10.2196/21447

Self-Care Index and Post-Acute Care Discharge Score to Predict Discharge Destination of Adult Medical Inpatients: Protocol for a Multicenter Validation Study

2020· article· en· W3107286538 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Antoinette Conca, Daniel Koch, Katharina Regez, Alexander Kutz, Ciril Bächli, Sebastian Haubitz, Philipp Schüetz, Beat Müeller, Rebecca Spirig, Heidi Petry

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsGeneralizability theoryMedicineAcute careProtocol (science)Emergency departmentEmergency medicineDischarge planningMedical emergencyProspective cohort studyHealth careNursingPsychologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delays in patient discharge can not only lead to deterioration, especially among geriatric patients, but also incorporate unnecessary resources at the hospital level. Many of these delays and their negative impact may be preventable by early focused screening to identify patients at risk for transfer to a post-acute care facility. Early interprofessional discharge planning is crucial in order to fit the appropriate individual discharge destination. While prediction of discharge to a post-acute care facility using post-acute care discharge score, the self-care index, and a combination of both has been shown in a single-center pilot study, an external validation is still missing. OBJECTIVE: This paper outlines the study protocol and methodology currently being used to replicate the previous pilot findings and determine whether the post-acute care discharge score, the self-care index, or the combination of both can reliably identify patients requiring transfer to post-acute care facilities. METHODS: This study will use prospective data involving all phases of the quasi-experimental study "In-HospiTOOL" conducted at 7 Swiss hospitals in urban and rural areas. During an 18-month period, consecutive adult medical patients admitted to the hospitals through the emergency department will be included. We aim to include 6000 patients based on sample size calculation. These data will enable a prospective external validation of the prediction instruments. RESULTS: We expect to gain more insight into the predictive capability of the above-mentioned prediction instruments. This approach will allow us to get important information about the generalizability of the three different models. The study was approved by the institutional review board on November 21, 2016, and funded in May 2020. Expected results are planned to be published in spring 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study will provide evidence on prognostic properties, comparative performance, reliability of scoring, and suitability of the instruments for the screening purpose in order to be able to recommend application in clinical practice. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21447.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.005

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→