MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385564153 · doi:10.1007/s12325-023-02609-8

Implementing an Evidence-Based COPD Hospital Discharge Protocol: A Narrative Review and Expert Recommendations

2023· review· en· W4385564153 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Miravitlles, Mohit Bhutani, John R. Hurst, Frits M.E. Franssen, Job F. M. van Boven, Ee Ming Khoo, Jing Zhang, Stephen Brunton, Daiana Stolz, Tonya Winders, Kazuhisa Asai, Jane Scullion

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineCOPDExacerbationHealth careIntensive care medicinePulmonary rehabilitationProtocol (science)PopulationPhysical therapyInternal medicineAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discharge bundles, comprising evidence-based practices to be implemented prior to discharge, aim to optimise patient outcomes. They have been recommended to address high readmission rates in patients who have been hospitalised for an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Hospital readmission is associated with increased morbidity and healthcare resource utilisation, contributing substantially to the economic burden of COPD. Previous studies suggest that COPD discharge bundles may result in fewer hospital readmissions, lower risk of mortality and improvement of patient quality of life. However, evidence for their effectiveness is inconsistent, likely owing to variable content and implementation of these bundles. To ensure consistent provision of high-quality care for patients hospitalised with an exacerbation of COPD and reduce readmission rates following discharge, we propose a comprehensive discharge protocol, and provide evidence highlighting the importance of each element of the protocol. We then review care bundles used in COPD and other disease areas to understand how they affect patient outcomes, the barriers to implementing these bundles and what strategies have been used in other disease areas to overcome these barriers. We identified four evidence-based care bundle items for review prior to a patient's discharge from hospital, including (1) smoking cessation and assessment of environmental exposures, (2) treatment optimisation, (3) pulmonary rehabilitation, and (4) continuity of care. Resource constraints, lack of staff engagement and knowledge, and complexity of the COPD population were some of the key barriers inhibiting effective bundle implementation. These barriers can be addressed by applying learnings on successful bundle implementation from other disease areas, such as healthcare practitioner education and audit and feedback. By utilising the relevant implementation strategies, discharge bundles can be more (cost-)effectively delivered to improve patient outcomes, reduce readmission rates and ensure continuity of care for patients who have been discharged from hospital following a COPD exacerbation.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.258
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.258
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207