Patterns of referral to interprofessional services among frail older adults presenting to emergency departments in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines recommend optimizing transitions of care for older patients with complex needs. In this study, we investigated referral patterns to interprofessional services, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, dietician, social work, home care, and specialized geriatric services, among older adults presenting to the ED with high-risk characteristics. METHODS: We recruited community-dwelling older adults presenting to 10 EDs across Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland, Canada, from April 2017 to July 2018. To observe processes of care in the ED, we deployed a two-stage high-risk case-finding and focused comprehensive assessment process based on the interRAI ED-Screener and ED Contact Assessment to identify and characterize older adults at high risk. We analyzed the secondary data using descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: We screened 5265 individuals with the ED Screener, further assessed 1479 with the ED Contact Assessment, and analyzed data from a subset of 1055 community-dwelling older adults assessed with the ED Contact Assessment. Participants in our study sample had a mean age of 83 years, 58% were female, and many had a complex burden of cognitive and functional impairment and social needs. Over half of this high-needs sample were referred to general home care services (62.7%), occupational therapy (59.3%), and physiotherapy services (55.2%), while 16% were referred to specialized geriatric services. We also found a significant positive association between interprofessional referrals and the Assessment Urgency Algorithm and Institutional Risk Scale. The most important determinants of referral to interprofessional services were hospital province, functional, clinical, and social burden and support measures. CONCLUSIONS: The referral patterns identified suggest that patient needs and risk intensity did not always guide referral patterns in the Canadian EDs investigated. We suggest that EDs critically examine the appropriateness of their documentation and referral systems for supporting person-centered care provision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".