Shifting the narrative from living at risk to living with risk: Validating and pilot-testing a clinical decision support tool: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background When there are safety concerns, healthcare professionals (HCPs) tend to overprotect older adults and may disregard their wishes to return or remain at home. A paradigm shift is needed for HCPs to move from labelling older adults as living at risk to helping them live with risk. The Living with Risk: Decision Support Tool (LwR:DST) was developed to support older adults and HCPs with difficult decision-making regarding living with risk. The study objectives were to: 1) validate, and 2) pilot-test the LwR:DST in hospital and community settings. Methods The study was conducted across Canada during the pandemic. The LwR:DST’s content was validated with quantitative and qualitative data by: 1) 71 HCPs from hospital and community settings using the Delphi method, and 2) 17 older adults and caregivers using focus groups. HCPs provided feedback on the LwR:DST’s content, format and instruction manual while older adults provided feedback on the LwR:DST’s communication step. The revised LwR:DST was pilot-tested by 14 HCPs in one hospital and one community setting, and 17 older adults and caregivers described their experience of HCPs using this approach with them. Descriptive and thematic analysis were performed. Results The LwR:DST underwent two iterations incorporating qualitative and quantitative data provided by HCPs, older adults and caregivers. The quantitative Delphi method data validated the content and the process of the LwR:DST, while the qualitative data provided practical improvements. The pilot-testing results suggest that using the LwR:DST broadens HCPs’ clinical thinking, structures their decision-making, improves their communication and increases their competence and comfort with risk assessment and management. Our findings also suggest that the LwR:DST improves older adults’ healthcare experience by feeling heard, understood and involved. Conclusions This revised LwR:DST should help HCPs systematically identify frail older adults’ risks when they remain at or return home and find acceptable ways to mitigate these risks. The LwR:DST induces a paradigm shift by acknowledging that risks are inherent in everyday living and that risk-taking has positive and negative consequences. The challenges involved in integrating the LwR:DST into practice, i.e., when, how and with whom to use it, will be addressed in future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.099 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".