How is complexity measured and detected among community dwelling older people aged 65 years and over? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify and explore tools that measured and detected complexity of care among community dwelling people aged 65 years and older. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched for articles published up to 23 September 2022 including CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE, Cochrane database for trials and grey literature. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible articles included those with participants aged over 65 years, living in the community and studies that included care complexity detection or assessment and how this related to care delivered. Covidence was used to screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles. RESULTS: Eighteen full texts were reviewed; four studies were included in the final review. All selected studies included people aged over 65 years living in the community. A high level of reliability for the items included in the interventions was found. The selected studies included tools for assessing older person's needs with nurses involved in the assessment. CONCLUSION: The review identified four tools for measuring complexity in community dwelling older people. Two tools have the capacity to objectively measure complexity due to the holistic nature of items included and appear easy to use to support clinical judgement decisions. IMPACT: The review places a spotlight on the concept of complexity and highlights the lack of definition of care complexity. The synthesized result highlights the need to explore detection of care complexity of older people further and consider ways of supporting clinical judgement and decision making of community nurses. The use of a validated tool may enhance clinical judgement regarding care complexity and may lead to a more consistent and timely approach to care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: During the development phase, the study was presented to a consumer group from the researcher's workplace. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022299336.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".