MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321116806 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066645

Paramedic supportive discharge programmes to improve health system efficiency and patient outcomes: a scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4321116806 on OpenAlexafffund
Judah Goldstein, Dominic Lajeunesse, Khadija Abawajy, Angela Luan, Kristy Hancock, Alix Carter, J Greene, Jen McVey, Jacques Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSchwartz/Reisman Emergency Medicine InstituteNova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineGrey literaturePsychological interventionMEDLINEScopusEmergency departmentProtocol (science)Scope (computer science)Medical educationNursingAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Discharging older adults with frailty home from the emergency department (ED) poses unique challenges due to multiple interacting physical and social problems. Paramedic supportive discharge services help overcome these challenges by adding in-home assessment and/or interventions. Our objective is to describe existing paramedic programmes designed to support discharge from the ED or hospital to avoid unnecessary hospital admissions. A comprehensive description of paramedic supportive discharge services will be conducted by mapping the literature to describe: (1) why such programmes are needed; (2) who is being targeted, making referrals and delivering the services and (3) what assessments and interventions are offered. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include studies that focus on expanded paramedic roles (community paramedicine) and extended scope postdischarge from the ED or hospital. All study designs will be included with no limit by language. We will include peer-reviewed articles and preprints and a targeted search of grey literature from January 2000 to June 2022. The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We will use a search strategy designed by a health science librarian to search MEDLINE All (Ovid), CINAHL Full Text (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier) and Scopus (Elsevier) for eligible studies from 2000 to present. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening and full-text review. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and verified by another. We will report our findings descriptively by charting trends in the research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics review is not required as this is a scoping review comprised published studies. The results of this research will be published in a manuscript and presented at national and international geriatric and emergency medicine conferences. This research will inform future implementation studies on community paramedic supportive discharge services. REGISTRATION: This scoping review protocol was registered in Open Science Framework and can be found here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X52P7.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.013
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.011

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.374 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→