Engaging older adults in diagnostic safety: implementing a diagnostic communication note sheet in a primary care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adults over the age of 65 are at a higher risk for diagnostic errors due to a myriad of reasons. In primary care settings, a large contributor of diagnostic errors are breakdowns in information gathering and synthesis throughout the patient-provider encounter. Diagnostic communication interventions, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's "Be the Expert on You" note sheet, may require adaptations to address older adults' unique needs. Methods: = 6) in focus group sessions to understand their perspectives on diagnostic communication and the existing AHRQ note sheet. A two-page communication and clinic workflow tool was developed and implemented over a 6-month period using three Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles. Physicians, nurses, staff, and patients were surveyed. Results: = 31) found the tailored diagnostic communication note sheet to be easy-to-use, helpful for provider communication, and would recommend its use to other patients. Physicians and staff members were satisfied with the note sheet and described few challenges in using it in practice. Discussion: Our findings contribute to the growing body of evidence around diagnostic safety interventions and patient engagement by demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of actively involving older adult patients in quality initiatives.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".