Expanding The INSPIRED COPD Outreach ProgramTM to the emergency department: a feasibility assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Darcy Gillis,1 Jillian Demmons,1 Graeme Rocker1,2 1Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Halifax, NS, Canada; 2Division of Respirology, Nova Scotia Health Authority, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Background: The Halifax-based INSPIRED COPD Outreach Program™ is a facility-to-community home-based novel clinical initiative that through improved care transitions, self-management, and engagement in advance care planning has demonstrated a significant (60%–80%) reduction in health care utilization with substantial cost aversion. By assessing the feasibility of expanding INSPIRED into the emergency department (ED) we anticipated extending reach and potential for positive impact of INSPIRED to those with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) who avoid hospital admission.Methods: Patients were eligible for the INSPIRED-ED study if >40 years of age, diagnosed with AECOPD and discharged from the ED, willing to be referred, community dwelling with at least one of: previous use of the ED services, admission to Intermediate Care Unit/Intensive Care Unit, or admission to hospital with AECOPD in the past year. We set feasibility objectives for referral rates, completion of action plans, advance care planning participation, and reduction in ED visit frequency.Results: Referral rates were 0.5/week. Among eligible patients (n=174) 33 (19%) were referred of whom 15 (M=4, F=11) enrolled in INSPIRED-ED. Mean (SD) age was 68 (7) years, post-bronchdilator FEV1 44.2 (15.5) % predicted, and Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea score 3.8 (0.41). We met feasibility objectives for action plan and advance care planning completion. Frequency of subsequent ED visits fell by 54%. Mean (SD) Care Transition Measure (CTM-3) improved from 8.6 (2.0) to 11.3 (1.3), P=0.0004, and of 14 patients responding 12 (86%) found the program very helpful. An additional 34 patients were enrolled to our regular program from those referred but ineligible for INSPIRED-ED (n=27) or unwilling to participate (n=7).Conclusions: INSPIRED-ED outcomes were generally positive, however referral and enrollment rates were lower than anticipated. Despite the potential of early self-management education, the ED may not be the ideal recruitment setting for home-based programs. Our findings underline the importance of conducting preliminary work to ascertain best settings for implementing new self-management education initiatives. Keywords: Self-management education, community-based care, holistic COPD care, admission, readmission
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 | 0.048 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".