MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308959647 · doi:10.1002/nop2.1476

Electronic consultation use by advanced practice nurses in older adult care—A descriptive study of service utilization data

2022· article· en· W4308959647 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ramtin Hakimjavadi, Sathya Karunananthan, Cheryl Levi, Kimberly LeBlanc, Sheena Guglani, Mary Helmer‐Smith, Clare Liddy

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses AssociationUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineReferralAdvanced Practice NursesDescriptive statisticsFamily medicineService (business)Nurse practitionersNursingClinical nurse specialistPopulationHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe characteristics of service utilization by advanced practice nurses (APNs) employing an electronic consultation (eConsult) service in their care for older adults. BACKGROUND: Canada's aging population is projected to place unprecedented demands on the healthcare system. APNs, which include clinical nurse specialists (CNSs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), are nurses with advanced knowledge who can independently provide age-appropriate care. eConsult is a secure web-based platform enabling asynchronous, provider-to-provider communication. APNs can send and receive eConsults to address patient-specific concerns. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of eConsult utilization and user survey data for cases completed in 2019, reported in line with the STROBE guidelines. Eligible eConsults included those that had APN involvement (as a referrer or responder) and were concerning an older patient (≥65 years). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse service utilization and survey response data. RESULTS: Of 430 eligible eConsults, 421 (97.9%) were initiated by NPs and the rest by physicians. 23 (5.3%) were received by a CNS, of which 14 (3.3%) involved an NP-to-CNS exchange. Median specialist response interval was 0.9 days. 53% of eConsults was for dermatology, haematology, cardiology, gastroenterology and endocrinology. 73% of eConsults avoided a face-to-face referral after the consultation. In 90% of eConsults, APNs rated the service as helpful and/or educational. CONCLUSIONS: Through eConsult, APNs can collaborate with each other and physicians to access and provide a breadth of advice facilitating timely specialist-informed care for older patients, thus helping to alleviate some of the demands placed on the healthcare system. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is an opportunity for APNs to further adopt eConsult into their clinical practice, and this can, in turn, support the integration of the APN role in the health workforce. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Current APN eConsult users were involved in the study design and interpretation of results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing OpenSame topicHealthcare Systems and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207