MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220776014 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000661

Models of Care in Geriatric Intensive Care—A Scoping Review on the Optimal Structure of Care for Critically Ill Older Adults Admitted in an ICU

2022· article· en· W4220776014 on OpenAlexaff
Tasheen Wissanji, Marie‐France Forget, John Muscedere, Dominique Beaudin, Richard Coveney, Han Ting Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritically illMedicineGeriatric careIntensive care medicineIntensive careCritical care nursingNursingHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing proportion of critically ill patients admitted in ICUs are older adults. The need for improving care provided to older adults in critical care settings to optimize functional status and quality of life for survivors is acknowledged, but the optimal model of care remains unknown. We aimed to identify and describe reported models of care. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a scoping review on critically ill older adults hospitalized in the ICU. Medline (PubMed), Embase (OvidSP), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (Ebsco), and Web of Science (Clarivate) were searched from inception to May 5, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: We included original articles, published abstracts, review articles, editorials, and commentaries describing or discussing the implementation of geriatric-based models of care in critical care, step-down units, and trauma centers. The organization of care had to be described. Articles only discussing geriatric syndromes and specific interventions were not included. DATA EXTRACTION: Full texts of included studies were obtained. We collected publication and study characteristics, structures of care, human resources used, interventions done or proposed, results, and measured outcomes. Data abstraction was done by two investigators and reconciled, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search identified 3,765 articles, and we found 19 reporting on the implementation of geriatric-based models of care in the setting of critical care. Four different models of care were identified: dedicated geriatric beds, geriatric assessment by a geriatrician, geriatric assessment without geriatrician, and a fourth model called "other approaches" including geriatric checklists, bundles of care, and incremental educational strategies. We were unable to assess the superiority of any model due to limited data. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple models have been reported in the literature with varying degrees of resource and labor intensity. More data are required on the impact of these models, their feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0120.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207