Exploring Reasons for Delayed Start-of-Care Nursing Visits in Home Health Care: Algorithm Development and Data Science Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed start-of-care nursing visits in home health care (HHC) can result in negative outcomes, such as hospitalization. No previous studies have investigated why start-of-care HHC nursing visits are delayed, in part because most reasons for delayed visits are documented in free-text HHC nursing notes. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (1) develop and test a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that automatically identifies reasons for delayed visits in HHC free-text clinical notes and (2) describe reasons for delayed visits in a large patient sample. METHODS: This study was conducted at the Visiting Nurse Service of New York (VNSNY). We examined data available at the VNSNY on all new episodes of care started in 2019 (N=48,497). An NLP algorithm was developed and tested to automatically identify and classify reasons for delayed visits. RESULTS: The performance of the NLP algorithm was 0.8, 0.75, and 0.77 for precision, recall, and F-score, respectively. A total of one-third of HHC episodes (n=16,244) had delayed start-of-care HHC nursing visits. The most prevalent identified category of reasons for delayed start-of-care nursing visits was no answer at the door or phone (3728/8051, 46.3%), followed by patient/family request to postpone or refuse some HHC services (n=2858, 35.5%), and administrative or scheduling issues (n=1465, 18.2%). In 40% (n=16,244) of HHC episodes, 2 or more reasons were documented. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid critical delays in start-of-care nursing visits, HHC organizations might examine and improve ways to effectively address the reasons for delayed visits, using effective interventions, such as educating patients or caregivers on the importance of a timely nursing visit and improving patients' intake procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".