Identifying Predictors of Nursing Home Admission by Using Electronic Health Records and Administrative Data: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Among older adults, nursing home admissions (NHAs) are considered a significant adverse outcome and have been extensively studied. Although the volume and significance of electronic data sources are expanding, it is unclear what predictors of NHA have been systematically identified in the literature via electronic health records (EHRs) and administrative data. Objective: This study synthesizes findings of recent literature on identifying predictors of NHA that are collected from administrative data or EHRs. Methods: The PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines were used for study selection. The PubMed and CINAHL databases were used to retrieve the studies. Articles published between January 1, 2012, and March 31, 2023, were included. Results: A total of 34 papers were selected for final inclusion in this review. In addition to NHA, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and rehospitalization were frequently used as outcome measures. The most frequently used models for predicting NHAs were Cox proportional hazards models (studies: n=12, 35%), logistic regression models (studies: n=9, 26%), and a combination of both (studies: n=6, 18%). Several predictors were used in the NHA prediction models, which were further categorized into sociodemographic, caregiver support, health status, health use, and social service use factors. Only 5 (15%) studies used a validated frailty measure in their NHA prediction models. Conclusions: NHA prediction tools based on EHRs or administrative data may assist clinicians, patients, and policy makers in making informed decisions and allocating public health resources. More research is needed to assess the value of various predictors and data sources in predicting NHAs and validating NHA prediction models externally.
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 | 0.029 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".