MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294243277 · doi:10.23889/ijpds.v7i3.1847

Care trajectory in homes care users across mortality-risk profiles: an observational study.

2022· article· en· W4294243277 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maya Murmann, Douglas G. Manuel, Peter Tanuseputro, Carol Bennett, Michael Pugliese, Rhiannon Roberts, Wenshan Li, Amy T. Hsu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Population Data Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaBruyère
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careEmergency departmentCohortObservational studyHealth careRetrospective cohort studyAdvance care planningEmergency medicinePopulationCohort studyRisk assessmentAcute careDemographyGerontologyFamily medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectivesRESPECT is a prognostic tool, developed using linked population-based data, to predict 6-month mortality in community-dwelling older adults. RESPECT is implemented and openly accessible as a web-based tool on ProjectBigLife.ca, where over 700,000 calculations have been performed to date. Our objective was to describe healthcare utilization patterns among home care (HC) users across mortality risk profiles generated from RESPECT to inform care planning for older persons who have varying mortality risks and levels of care needs as they decline. ApproachWe conducted a retrospective cohort study examining healthcare use among HC users in Ontario, Canada, who received at least one interRAI HC assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. Using linked health administrative data at the individual level, we examined the use of acute care (hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits), long-term care (LTC), and palliative home care within 6-months of each assessment and prognostication using RESPECT. Mortality risk profiles from RESPECT were created based on the median survival. ResultsThe cohort comprised 247,377 community-dwelling older adults; 14.3% died within 6-months of an assessment. Among decedents, half (51.51%) of HC users with a predicted median survival of less than 3-months received at least one palliative care home visit; 39.17%, 34.82% and 13.84% visited the ED, were hospitalized, or were admitted to LTC, respectively. The proportion of assessments that received at least one palliative HC visit declined to 43.11% and 30.28% of assessments with a median survival between 3- and 6-months and those between 6-months and 12-months, respectively. The proportion of assessments with an acute care use increases with increasing median survival. ConclusionA considerable proportion of people at the end-of-life do not receive any palliative home care and continued to be institutionalized. This may be indication that the reduced life expectancies and palliative care needs of many older adults are not being recognized, thus demonstrating the value of prognostic models like RESPECT to inform care planning for individuals in their final years of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.317
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Population Data ScienceSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207