MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408184081 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0315641

Implementing a new patient navigator model of care within the emergency department for older adults in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4408184081 on OpenAlexaffabout
Grace Liu, Amanda Knoepfli, Tracey DasGupta, Naomi Ziegler, Emma Elliot, Mahala English, Sander L. Hitzig, Sara J. T. Guilcher

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineRetrospective cohort studyTriagePhoneDemographicsFamily medicineCohortEmergency medicineMedical emergencyDemographyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Patient Navigator (PN) role was introduced in the Emergency Department (ED) in a large metropolitan hospital in Southern Ontario (Canada) to assist with care transitions. The purpose of this study was to describe the new PN program and type of services provided for older adults in the ED. Given the novelty of the program, it is critical to better understand how a PN ED model of care may help improve the discharge process and ED-community transitions for older adults. This retrospective observational cohort study includes data between November 2020 and October 2021. In this study, the clinical data collected by the PN were analyzed to describe the patient socio-demographics, types of services provided, and outcomes. The PN contacted 95% patients (n = 125) referred to the service in which the median age was 80 (SD = 9.0) consisting of mostly females (74%; n = 92). The PN provided consultations to 79 patients (≤7 days) and 46 patients were admitted to the PN's caseload. For the 46 admitted cases, the PN connected to 52% of the patients on the same day, facilitated 83% of the patients in returning home or supportive setting and provided follow-up care (i.e., phone calls or home visits) for 67 days (median) in the community. This study provides a preliminary depiction of the scope of practice of a PN within an ED setting, and important considerations for decision-makers and/or administrators interested in implementing a PN role in the ED.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→