MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385264691 · doi:10.1017/s0714980823000247

Improving Transitional Care for Older Adults: Results of a Patient-Centred Quality Improvement Intervention

2023· article· en· W4385264691 on OpenAlexaff
Jane McCusker, Sylvie Beauchamp, Sylvie Lambert, Mark J. Yaffe⃰, Ari N. Meguerditchian, Beverley-Tracey John, Marie-Pierre Bourbonnais, Shek Fung, Manon de Raad, Éric Belzile

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsSt Mary's Hospital CentreMcGill UniversityCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services Sociaux
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransitional careEmergency departmentQuality managementIntervention (counseling)Patient dischargePatient satisfactionHospital dischargeDischarge planningGerontologyEmergency medicineFamily medicineMEDLINENursingHealth careOperations managementIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation and outcomes of a quality improvement intervention for older adults discharged from hospital to home, that used a patient-centred discharge education tool called the Patient-Centered Discharge Plan (PCAP). We conducted a pre–post evaluation of PCAP implementation among patients 65 years and older and discharged home from an acute medical or geriatric admission at two general hospitals. Two patient cohorts, PRE and POST, were analysed using administrative data (n = 3,309) and post-discharge structured interviews in a subset of patients (n = 326). Outcomes were 90-day readmissions and return emergency department (ED) visits, and transition experiences (10-item scale). The PCAP was provided to 20 per cent of 1,683 patients. Transition experience scores increased from PRE to POST at both hospitals (adjusted beta 1.3; 95% CI: 0.8, 1.7), and return ED visits declined in one of the two hospitals (adjusted decline 1.3%; 95% CI: -3.7, 6.2). In conclusion, dedicated resources are needed to support future PCAP implementation.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→