The Association Between the Presence of Medical Care and Resident Outcomes in Canadian Nursing Homes: a Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of medical care provided to older residents in nursing homes may depend upon available staffing models; this study examined the relationship between physician and nurse practitioner (NP) presence, care involvement, and resident outcomes. The secondary analysis of data collected in the Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) study during 2019-20 included items on daily presence of physicians and NPs on units, physician involvement in care planning, and ability to contact physician or NP when necessary linked to routinely collected Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set version 2.0 data. Eight logistic regression models tested the association between measures of staffing involvement and each outcome (antipsychotic use without indication (APM), physical restraint use, hospital transfers, and polypharmacy). The sample consisted of 10,888 residents across 320 care units in 90 facilities. Of the units, 277 (86%) reported a physician or NP visited daily, 160 (72.1%) reported that the physician was involved in care planning, and 318 (99%) units reported that the physician or NP could be reached when needed. Following adjustment for multiple confounding variables, there were no statistically significant associations between presence/involvement of medical professionals and resident outcomes (for example, physician or NP presence on the unit and hospitalization transfers [AOR=1.17, 95% CI: 0.46-3.10] or polypharmacy [AOR=1.37, 95% CI: 0.64-2.93]). We found non-significant associations between medical staff presence and involvement and selected resident outcomes, suggesting either the presence of many unaccounted for confounding inter-related resident-care provider variables or underlying insensitivity of the available data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".