Can Linked Electronic Medical Record and Administrative Data Help Us Identify Those Living With Frailty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionFrailty is a combination of factors that increase vulnerability to functional decline, dependence and/or death. Frailty cannot easily be defined by comorbidities or medical treatment alone. Accurate detection of frailty in practice and at a population level is needed. This may be achieved using a combination of data sources. Objectives and ApproachWe construct algorithms that can identify frailty using electronic medical record (EMR) and administrative data. We linked EMR data from the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network (CPCSSN) nodes and the administrative (e.g. billings, hospitalizations) from Population Data BC and the Manitoba Health Policy Centre. Frailty was defined as individuals 65+ who were receiving home services, had specific chronic conditions, received specific diagnoses, and/or had specific lab or other clinical indicators. We describe sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, prescribed medications, use and costs of healthcare for those identified as frail. ResultsPeople were identified as frail in 2014 and all analysis was completed with 2015 data. Among those who were > 65 years, who had a record in both EMR and administrative data, 5\%-8\% (n=191 of 3,553, BC; n=2,396 of 29,382, MB) were identified as frail. There was a higher likelihood of being frail with increasing age and being a woman. In BC, those identified as frail have higher contacts with primary care (n=20 vs. n=10) and more days in hospital (n=7.4 vs. n=2.0) compared to those who are not frail. Twenty two percent of those identified as frail in 2014 died in 2015, compared to a mortality rate of 2\% among those who are not frail. Conclusion/ImplicationsIdentifying and reporting on those who are frail in primary care as well as in communities could enable targeted communications with patients and families and community based resources in order to improve patient care, patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life and better use of the healthcare system.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".