MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393071217 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100809

Geriatric Assessment in CKD Care: An Implementation Study

2024· article· en· W4393071217 on OpenAlex
Carlijn Voorend, Noeleen C. Berkhout-Byrne, Leti van Bodegom‐Vos, Adry Diepenbroek, Casper Franssen, Hanneke Joosten, Simon P. Mooijaart, Willem Jan W. Bos, Marjolijn van Buren, Arjan van Alphen, Noeleen Berkhout-Byrne, Fenna van Breda, Henk Boom, Mariëlle H. Emmelot‐Vonk, Sandrine Gaillard, Nel Groeneweg-Peeters, Bettie Hoekstra, Nienke Hommes, Francoise Hoornaar, Joep Lagró, Elisabeth J R Litjens, F. Molenaar, Aegida Neradová, Mike Peters, Michelle Troost, Wilma Veldman, Lidwien Westerbos, Carlijne Westerman-van der Wijden, Judith Wierdsma

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNierstichting
KeywordsMedicineAdvance care planningMultidisciplinary approachHealth careNursingFamily medicineGerontologyPalliative care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale & Objective: Older people with progressive chronic kidney disease (CKD) have complex health care needs. Geriatric evaluation preceding decision making for kidney replacement is recommended in guidelines, but implementation is lacking in routine care. We aimed to evaluate implementation of geriatric assessment in CKD care. Study Design: Mixed methods implementation study. Setting & Participants: . Quality Improvement Activities/Exposure: We implemented a consensus-based nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment: a patient questionnaire and professionally administered test set comprising 16 instruments covering functional, cognitive, psychosocial, and somatic domains and patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes: We aimed for implementation in 10 centers and 200 patients. Implementation was evaluated by (i) perceived enablers and barriers of implementation, including integration in work routines (Normalization Measure Development Tool) and (ii) relevance of the instruments to routine care for the target population. Analytical Approach: Variations in implementation practices were described based on field notes. The postimplementation survey among health care professionals was analyzed descriptively, using an explanatory qualitative approach for open-ended questions. Results: Geriatric assessment was implemented in 10 centers among 191 patients. Survey respondents (n = 71, 88% response rate) identified determinants that facilitated implementation, ie, multidisciplinary collaboration (with geriatricians) -meetings and reports and execution of assessments by nurses. Barriers to implementation were patient illiteracy or language barrier, time constraints, and patient burden. Professionals considered geriatric assessment sufficiently integrated into work routines (mean, 6.7/10 ± 2.0 [SD]) but also subject to improvement. Likewise, the relevance of geriatric assessment for routine care was scored as 7.8/10 ± 1.2. The Clinical Frailty Score and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were perceived as the most relevant instruments. Limitations: Selection bias of interventions' early adopters may limit generalizability. Conclusions: Geriatric assessment could successfully be integrated in CKD care and was perceived relevant to health care professionals.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.379 · 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