Acute outreach service to nursing homes: A systematic review with GRADE and triple aim approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People living in nursing homes face the risk of visiting the emergency department (ED). Outreach services are developing to prevent unnecessary transfers to ED. AIMS: We aim to assess the performance of acute care services provided to people living in nursing homes or long-term homecare, focusing on ED transfer prevention, safety, cost-effectiveness and experiences. MATERIALS & METHODS: This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed and examined acute outreach services dedicated to delivering care to people in nursing homes or long-term homecare. The service models could also have preventive components. The databases searched were Scopus and CINAHL. In addition, Robins-I and SIGN checklists were used. The primary outcomes of prevented ED transfers or hospitalisations and the composite outcome of adverse events (mortality/Emergency Medical Service or ED visit after outreach service contact related to the same clinical condition) were graded with GRADE. RESULTS: Fifteen relevant original studies were found-all were observational and focused on nursing homes. The certainty of evidence for acute outreach services with preventive components to prevent ED transfers or hospitalisations was low. Stakeholders were satisfied with these services. The certainty of evidence for solely acute outreach services to prevent ED transfers or hospitalisations was very low and inconclusive. Reporting of adverse events was inconsistent, certainty of evidence for adverse events was low. CONCLUSION: Published data might support adopting acute outreach services with preventive components for people living in nursing homes to reduce ED transfers, hospitalisations and possibly costs. If an outreach service is started, it is recommended that a cluster-randomised or quasi-experimental research design be incorporated to assess the effectiveness and safety of the service. More evidence is also needed on cost-effectiveness and stakeholders' satisfaction. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020211048, date of registration: 25.09.2020.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".