MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224981347 · doi:10.1177/08404704221084151

Transitions of care for hospital discharges in a primary care network

2022· article· en· W4224981347 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Schaub, Yana Ilin Shpilkerman, Heather Roland, Kacey Keyko, Katrina Parisé

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesCanadian Obesity Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary careMedicineEmergency medicineEmergency departmentClinical PracticeFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transitions to and from primary care are a time of concern, especially for patients with chronic conditions and complex care needs. The Edmonton Southside Primary Care Network (ESPCN) developed a process for nurses to ensure timely post-discharge follow-up calls and physician appointments after hospitalization, assessing readmission risk with LACE and Clinical Frailty scores. Over 84% of eligible high-risk discharges received follow-up within 14 days. Of 7,400 index discharges, 1,464 had an emergency department revisit and 725 patients were readmitted within 30 days. Overall, ESPCN rates of readmission (9.8%) and rates of Family Practice Sensitive Conditions (FPSC) (5.7%) were significantly lower than national and provincial rates. FPSC rates for high-risk patients were significantly lower than low- or medium-risk groups. Consistent processes that support nursing involvement enable primary care teams to focus on those with highest risk for adverse outcomes and support patients to access the most appropriate place for the care they need.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207