MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389009909 · doi:10.1007/s40801-023-00403-0

Outcomes of a Medication Optimization Virtual Interdisciplinary Geriatric Specialist (MOVING) Program: A Feasibility Study

2023· article· en· W4389009909 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs - Real World Outcomes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoGrand River HospitalMcMaster UniversitySt. Michael's HospitalResearch Institute for AgingWestern UniversityRegional Municipality of Waterloo
FundersCentre for Aging + Brain Health Innovation
KeywordsPolypharmacyMedicineMedical prescriptionDeprescribingBeers CriteriaPharmacyConfidence intervalGeriatricsEmergency medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events among older adults result in significant mortality, morbidity and cost. This harm may be mitigated with appropriate prescribing and deprescribing. We sought to understand the prescribing outcomes of an interdisciplinary geriatric virtual consultation service. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, before-and-after feasibility study to measure prescribing outcomes for a medication optimization virtual interdisciplinary geriatric specialist (MOVING) programme comprised of expertise from geriatric clinical pharmacology, pharmacy and psychiatry for older adults (aged ≥ 65 years) between June and December 2018, Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the number of distinct prescriptions and the presence of polypharmacy (defined as ≥ 4 medications) before and after the service. Secondary outcomes included the number of as needed and regularly administered prescriptions, number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions as defined by the Beers and STOPP criteria, and number of prescriptions for psychotropics, long-acting opioids and diabetic medications. RESULTS: We studied 40 patients with a mean age of 80.6 [standard deviation (SD) 8.8] years who received a MOVING consult. We found no significant change in the mean total number of prescriptions per patient before (12.02, SD 5.83) and after the intervention (11.58, SD 5.28), with a mean difference of -0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to 0.04; p = 0.07]. We found statistically significant decreases in as needed prescriptions (mean difference - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.45 to - 0.15; p<0.001), and potentially harmful medications as identified by the Beers (mean difference -1.25, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.50; p = 0.002) and STOPP (mean difference -1.65, 95% CI -2.33 to -0.97; p < 0.001) scores. Without including the cost savings from hospital diversion by a MOVING consult, the costs of a MOVING consult were $545.80-$629.80 per person, compared with the costs associated with traditional in-person consults involving similar specialist clinical services ($904.89-$1270.69 per person). CONCLUSION: A MOVING model of care is associated with decreases in prescriptions for potentially inappropriate medications in older adults. These findings support further evaluation to ascertain health system impacts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.359 · 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