Developing the Patient Falls Risk Report: A Mixed-Methods Study on Sharing Falls-Related Clinical Information from Home Care with Primary Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract If interRAI home care information were shared with primary care providers, care provision and integration could be enhanced. The objective of this study was to co-develop an interRAI-based clinical information sharing tool (i.e., the Patient Falls Risk Report) with a sample of primary care providers. This mixed-methods study employed semi-structured interviews to inform the development of the Patient Falls Risk Report and online surveys based on the System Usability Scale instrument to test its usability. Most of the interview sample ( n = 9) believed that the report could support patient care by sharing relevant and actionable falls-related information. However, criticisms were identified, including insufficient detail, clarity, and support for shared care planning. After incorporating suggestions for improvement, the survey sample ( n = 27) determined that the report had excellent usability with an overall usability score of 83.4 (95% CI = 78.7–88.2). By prioritizing the needs of end-users, sustainable interRAI interventions can be developed to support primary care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".