MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390942632 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic23635

A novel application of a self-report comprehensive assessment: Where do telephone assessments fit in home care practice?

2023· article· en· W4390942632 on OpenAlexaffabout
Connie Schumacher, Rebecca H. Correia, Sophie Hogeveen, Megan L. Salter, Bailey Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneFocus groupMedicineNursingTelehealthMoodHealth carePsychologyFamily medicineTelemedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In Canada, long-stay home care patients are a prevalent group of frail older adults living in the community. Home care patients have a high emergency department visit rate compared to those living independently without formal home care services. In March 2020, concerted efforts were put into place to reduce COVID-19 transmission and spread in health sectors, including older adult home care populations. Description: The interRAI home care (HC) assessment is the practice standard for face-to-face comprehensive assessments in home care. The interRAI Check Up is a comprehensive self-report assessment that can be completed in-person, by video call or telephone. Check Up assessment items are consistent with the content items of interRAI HC. During pandemic mandated restrictions, care coordinators used the Check Up to assess new and existing patients over the phone or by video call to ensure continuity of care. Feasibility and utility of the Check Up was evaluated through a staff survey and focus groups in two distinct regions of Ontario. Discussion: A total of 48 care coordinators completed the survey, of which 7 consented to provide feedback in the focus groups. Care coordinators found the Check Up easy to pivot to during the pandemic, citing familiarity with questions and risk algorithms. The Check Up results were helpful in gaining an understanding of the patient’s medical issues, functional status, mood, and informal supports, while telephone and video assessments saved travel time. According to the care coordinators, patients and informal care givers were comfortable answering the questions over the phone and appreciative of interaction with a health professional. Although care coordinators were accustomed to telephone check ins, language barriers, hearing impairment, and inability to see the home environment were limitations. Care coordinators found telephone assessments, using the Check Up, most beneficial in the absence of cognitive impairment and with patients previously known and assessed by the care coordinator. Conclusion: The interRAI Check Up was an efficient method of completing a comprehensive assessment over the phone. Care coordinators found the Check Up to be best suited for reassessments and as a new assessment with stable, cognitively intact patients. Our findings support use of the interRAI Check Up as a promising and feasible addition to the suite of tools for home care coordination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.414 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→