Using Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Identifying Care Goals and Referral Services in a Frailty Intervention Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proportion of older adults and frail adults in Canada is expected to rise significantly in upcoming years. Currently, a considerable number of older adults do not actively participate in developing their own care plans; prior research has indicated several benefits of patient engagement in this process. Thus, we conducted a mixed methods study that examined the prevalence of rehabilitation goals and identified these for 305 community dwelling older adults referred to a frailty intervention clinic utilizing Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) between 2014 and 2018. Top patient concerns included mobility (84%), services, systems, and policies (51%), sensory functions and pain (50%), and self-care or domestic life (47%). The most common referrals or recommendations for patients included further follow-up with a physician or specialist (36%), referral to an onsite falls prevention clinic (31%), and medication modifications (31%). Based upon these findings, we recommend greater utilization of CGA within a team-based approach to improve patient care by allowing for greater collaboration and shared decision-making by health-care providers. Moreover, CGA can be an effective tool to meet the complex and unique health-care needs of frail patients while incorporating patient goals. This is vitally important considering the predicted growth in the population of frail and/or older patients, as well as the current challenges and shortfalls in meeting the health-care needs of this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".