Prioritization and management of calls from older people to GP out-of-hours services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urgent out-of-hours medical care is necessary to ensure people can remain living at home into older age. However, older people experience multiple barriers to using out-of-hours services including poor awareness about the general practitioner (GP) out-of-hours (GPOOH) service and how to access it. In particular, older people are reluctant users of GPOOH services because they expect either their symptoms will not be taken seriously or they will simply be referred to hospital accident and emergency services. The aim of this study was to examine if this expectation was borne out in the manner of GPOOH service provision. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to establish the urgency categorization and management of calls to GPOOH , for community dwelling older people in Ireland. METHODS: An 8-week sample of 770 calls, for people over 65 years, to a GPOOH service in Ireland, was analysed using Excel and Nvivo software. RESULTS: Urgency categorization of older people shows 40% of calls categorized as urgent. Recognition of the severity of symptoms, prompting calls to the GPOOH service, is also reflected in a quarter of callers receiving a home visit by the GP and referral of a third of calls to emergency services. The findings also show widespread reliance on another person to negotiate the GPOOH system, with a third party making 70% of calls on behalf of the older person seeking care. CONCLUSION: Older people are in urgent need of medical services when they contact GPOOH service, which plays an effective and patient-centred gatekeeping role, particularly directing the oldest old to the appropriate level of care outside GP office hours. The promotion of GPOOH services should be enhanced to ensure older people understand their role in supporting community living.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".