How comprehensive is our comprehensive geriatric assessment in clinical practice? An Irish perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is the cornerstone of high-quality care for older adults. There is no current gold standard to guide what should be included as the baseline measure for CGAs. We examined what metrics are being captured in CGA baseline assessments completed by community based integrated care teams in Ireland. METHODS: CGA's care pathways in Ireland are usually initiated with a written document that establish patients baseline in various assessment areas. These documents were the focus of this study. We completed a cross-sectional study of the components captured in CGA baseline assessments completed in a community setting. We contacted operational leads in each of the community health organisations in Ireland and requested a copy of their current initial baseline screening document for CGA. RESULTS: We reviewed 16 individual CGA baseline documents for analysis in this study. Common assessment areas in all documents included frailty (with the Rockwood Clinical frailty scale used in 94%, n = 15), cognition (4AT-56% of CGAs, MMSE-25%, MOCA-25%, AMTS-19%, AD8-19%, Addenbrookes-13%, 6CIT-13%, mini cog-6%), mobility (100%, n = 16), falls (100%, n = 16), continence (100% n = 16), nutrition (100% n = 16). Mood (94%, n = 15), pain (44%, n = 7), bone health (63%, n = 10), sleep (62%, n = 10) and skin integrity (56%, n = 9). Formal functional assessment was completed in 94% (n = 15) of CGAs with the Barthel index being the tool most used 81% (n = 13). Half of the CGAs included a section describing carer strain (50%, n = 8). The majority of CGAs included a patient centred question which was some variation of 'what matters most to me' (75% n = 11). 87.5% of assessments included a care plan summary (n = 14). CONCLUSIONS: This report highlights that the core tenets of CGA are being assessed across different community based initial CGA screening instruments. There was significant variability in the discussion of challenging topics such as carer strain and social well-being. Our results should prompt a discussion about whether a minimum dataset should be developed for inclusion in nationwide initial baseline CGA document, aiming to improve standardisation of assessments, which will impact areas highlighted for intervention and ultimately guide population health policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".