Electronic Consultation by Advanced Practice Nurses to Improve Access to Specialist Care for Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults face several challenges when accessing specialist care. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) can perform an important role in primary care for older adults, particularly when bolstered with digital tools. In the current study, we conducted a multiple case study of electronic consultations (eConsults) involving APNs to assess how these practitioners use the service to improve access to care. All eConsults submitted by or to an APN in 2019 on behalf of patients aged ≥65 years were reviewed to identify examples from six settings representative of the range of advanced nursing practices. For each setting, a final case was chosen using an iterative process and stratified by specialty and type of advice. Included cases were assessed using a conceptual framework for health care access. Selected cases illustrate how APNs can be effective users of eConsults in a diversity of health care settings. The framework allowed for an in-depth study of access over the range of interactions that take place among patients, caregivers, providers, and the health care system. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48 (4), 33–40.]
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".