Examining the Use of Text Messages Among Multidisciplinary Care Teams to Reduce Avoidable Hospitalization of Nursing Home Residents with Dementia: Protocol for a Secondary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reducing avoidable nursing home (NH)-to-hospital transfers of residents with Alzheimer disease or a related dementia (ADRD) has become a national priority due to the physical and emotional toll it places on residents and the high costs to Medicare and Medicaid. Technologies supporting the use of clinical text messages (TMs) could improve communication among health care team members and have considerable impact on reducing avoidable NH-to-hospital transfers. Although text messaging is a widely accepted mechanism of communication, clinical models of care using TMs are sparsely reported in the literature, especially in NHs. Protocols for assessing technologies that integrate TMs into care delivery models would be beneficial for end users of these systems. Without evidence to support clinical models of care using TMs, users are left to design their own methods and protocols for their use, which can create wide variability and potentially increase disparities in resident outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to describe the protocol of a study designed to understand how members of the multidisciplinary team communicate using TMs and how salient and timely communication can be used to avert poor outcomes for NH residents with ADRD, including hospitalization. METHODS: This project is a secondary analysis of data collected from a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)-funded demonstration project designed to reduce avoidable hospitalizations for long-stay NH residents. We will use two data sources: (1) TMs exchanged among the multidisciplinary team across the 7-year CMS study period (August 2013-September 2020) and (2) an adapted acute care transfer tool completed by advanced practice registered nurses to document retrospective details about NH-to-hospital transfers. The study is guided by an age-friendly model of care called the 4Ms (What Matters, Medications, Mentation, and Mobility) framework. We will use natural language processing, statistical methods, and social network analysis to generate a new ontology and to compare communication patterns found in TMs occurring around the time NH-to-hospital transfer decisions were made about residents with and without ADRD. RESULTS: After accounting for inclusion and exclusion criteria, we will analyze over 30,000 TMs pertaining to over 3600 NH-to-hospital transfers. Development of the 4M ontology is in progress, and the 3-year project is expected to run until mid-2025. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this project will be the first to explore the content of TMs exchanged among a multidisciplinary team of care providers as they make decisions about NH-to-hospital resident transfers. Understanding how the presence of evidence-based elements of high-quality care relate to avoidable hospitalizations among NH residents with ADRD will generate knowledge regarding the future scalability of behavioral interventions. Without this knowledge, NHs will continue to rely on ineffective and outdated communication methods that fail to account for evidence-based elements of age-friendly care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50231.
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 | 0.053 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.009 |
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".