Integrated care for older persons who live with complex health and social care requirements: a core set of indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Performance measures are an important mediating mechanism that influences the design and delivery of care. Unfortunately, it is still commonly the case that acute care indicators are employed to assess the efficacy of integrated care. This hinders the ability to accurately assess and continuously improve integrated care efforts for priority populations, including older persons who live with complex health and social care requirements. A core set of indicators is needed from which to assess the quality and impact of integrated care on these older persons and care partners. Design/methodology/approach A modified Delphi process was employed that comprised of the following steps: (1) selection of an indicator inventory (2) defining criteria for ranking and achieving consensus, (3) recruiting participants, (4) iterative voting rounds and analysis and (5) selection of a core indicator set. Findings The study produced a core set of 16 indicators of integrated care that pertain to older persons who live with health and social care requirements. The set can be applied by health and social care organizations and systems to assess the quality and impact of integrated care for this population across the continuum of care. Research limitations/implications Although the gap in the availability of relevant indicators was the impetus for the study, this also meant there was a dearth of validated indicators to draw from. There are significant gaps in commonly used data sets with respect to indicators of integrated care as it relates to older persons and care partner. Practical implications The indicator set is intended to follow the older person and care partner throughout their health journey, enabling a whole systems view of their care. The set can be used in full or in part by health and social care systems and organizations across various primary, acute, rehabilitative and community settings for program development and evaluation purposes. Social implications The core set of indicators that emerged out of this study is a first step toward ensuring that older persons who live with complex health and social care requirements and their care partners receive quality integrated care across the continuum of care. Originality/value The findings are informed by the perspectives of older persons, care partners and healthcare professionals. Future research is needed to test, validate and potentially expand the indicator set.
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 | 0.042 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".