A Digitally Enabled, Pharmacist service to detecT medicine harms in residential aged care (nursing home) (ADEPT): protocol for a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This feasibility study aims to develop and test a new model of practice in Australia using digital technologies to enable pharmacists to monitor early signs and symptoms of medicine-induced harms in residential aged care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Thirty residents will be recruited from an aged care facility in South Australia. The study will be conducted in two phases. In phase I, the study team will work with aged care software providers and developers of digital technologies (a wearable activity tracker and a sleep tracking sensor) to gather physical activity and sleep data, as well as medication and clinical data from the electronic medication management system and aged care clinical software. Data will be centralised into a cloud-based monitoring platform (TeleClinical Care (TCC)). The TCC will be used to create dashboards that will include longitudinal visualisations of changes in residents' health, function and medicine use over time. In phase II, the on-site pharmacist will use the centralised TCC platform to monitor each resident's medicine, clinical, physical activity and sleep data to identify signs of medicine-induced harms over a 12-week period.A mixed methods process evaluation applying the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) evaluation framework will be used to assess the feasibility of the service. Outcome measures include service reach, changes in resident symptom scores (measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), number of medication adverse events detected, changes in physical activity and sleep, number of pharmacist recommendations provided, cost analysis and proportion of all pharmacists' recommendations implemented at 4-week, 8-week and 12-week postbaseline period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of South Australia's Human Research Ethics Committee (205098). Findings will be disseminated through published manuscripts, conference presentations and reporting to the study funder. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12623000506695.
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 | 0.045 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.013 |
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".