MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312000507 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26983

Pandemic Preparedness and Beyond: Person- Centred Care for Older Adults Living in Long- Term Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic

2022· article· en· W4312000507 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Amy T. Hsu, Geetha Mukerji, Anne-Marie Levy, Andrea Iaboni

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityToronto Rehabilitation InstituteWomen's College HospitalBruyère
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicPreparednessLong-term careContext (archaeology)Social distancePersonhoodNursingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineQuality (philosophy)PsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing complexity of residents' needs, emphasis on social distancing and limited access to high-quality support presented challenges to patient-centred care during the pandemic.Yet the pandemic created an opportunity to explore novel approaches to achieving person-centred care within long-term care (LTC).We share three projects designed to enhance care delivery in the context of the pandemic: to address personhood needs during outbreaks, to improve the quality of medical care and to deliver personalized palliative and end-of-life care using a prediction algorithm.These projects enabled better care during the pandemic and will continue to advance person-centred care beyond the pandemic. Key Takeaways• Transformative changes and innovative integrative care models that aim to build capacity within long-term care are required to address the ongoing and complex care needs of residents who receive care in this setting.• The pandemic has offered an opportunity to create innovative approaches to how person-centred care can be provided in an under-resourced healthcare setting.The partnership with research teams has accelerated the development of context-and environment-specific tools and resources for LTC.• Solutions designed to support person-centred care must be flexible and adaptable to the environment.Allowing LTC providers to articulate the needs and goals of their own homes has been essential for motivating change.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207