MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recommendations for Medical and Mental Health Care in Assisted Living Based on an Expert Delphi Consensus Panel

2022· article· en· W4297997244 on OpenAlexaff
Sheryl Zimmerman, Philip D. Sloane, Christopher J. Wretman, Kevin Cao, Johanna Silbersack, Paula Carder, Kali S. Thomas, Josh Allen, Kim Butrum, Tony Chicotel, Pat Giorgio, Mauro Hernandez, Helen C. Kales, Paul R. Katz, Juliet Holt Klinger, M Kunze, Christopher E. Laxton, Vicki McNealley, Suzanne Meeks, Kevin O’Neil, Douglas Pace, Barbara Resnick, Lindsay Schwartz, Dallas Seitz, Lori Smetanka, Kimberly Van Haitsma

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsDelphi methodMental healthDelphiMedicineHealth careNursingLong-term careFamily medicinePsychologyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Assisted living (AL) is the largest provider of residential long-term care in the US, and the morbidity of AL residents has been rising. However, AL is not a health care setting, and concern has been growing about residents' medical and mental health needs. No guidance exists to inform this care. Objective: To identify consensus recommendations for medical and mental health care in AL and determine whether they are pragmatic. Evidence Review: A Delphi consensus statement study was conducted in 2021; as a separate effort, the extent to which the recommendations are reflected in practice was examined in data obtained from 2016 to 2021 (prepandemic). In the separate effort, data were from a 7-state study (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas). The 19 Delphi panelists constituted nationally recognized experts in medical, nursing, and mental health needs of and care for older adults; dementia care; and AL and long-term care management, advocacy, regulation, and education. One invitee was unavailable and nominated an alternate. The primary outcome was identification of recommended practices based on consensus ratings of importance. Panelists rated 183 items regarding importance to care quality and feasibility. Findings: Consensus identified 43 recommendations in the areas of staff and staff training, nursing and related services, resident assessment and care planning, policies and practices, and medical and mental health clinicians and care. To determine the pragmatism of the recommendations, their prevalence was examined in the 7-state study and found that most were in practice. The items reflected the tenets of AL, the role of AL in providing dementia care, the need for pragmatism due to the diversity of AL, and workforce needs. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 43 recommendations important to medical and mental health care in AL were delineated that are highly pragmatic as a guide for practice and policy.

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)0.260
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.276
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2600.276
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.013
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207