Care Needs and Self-Sufficiency Assessment of Home Care Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessing the changing care needs of home care clients is challenging due to the increasing multimorbidity and heterogeneity of geriatric syndromes, including frailty, functional decline, and cognitive impairment. We described the correlation between subjective judgment of changes in self-sufficiency and measured changes in health status. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 70,369 home care clients aged ≥65 years dwelling in a private residence in Ontario, Canada, with 2 interRAI Home Care assessments conducted between July 2021 and December 2023 were included. METHODS: We compared assessor-judged changes to self-sufficiency with changes in functioning, personal support and health service needs, cognition, health instability, and pain between the first and second assessments using validated outcome scales and algorithms derived from the interRAI Home Care. We used contingency tables to assess whether any change in outcome scales was consistent with self-sufficiency. We used matched-pairs rank-biserial correlation to compute effect sizes of the magnitude of change in outcome scales within each assessor-judged stratum. We conducted a sensitivity analysis, stratifying the cohort into assessments completed within and after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 50.6% of clients were judged by an assessor as having deteriorated in self-sufficiency over the last 90 days. Assessor-judged changes in self-sufficiency were associated with personal support and care needs, health instability, and activities of daily living performance. Worsened self-sufficiency was less associated with pain, whereas improved self-sufficiency was weakly associated with improved cognition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Assessor-judged changes in self-sufficiency strongly correlate with changes in health status and care needs. Subjective clinician summaries of health changes show validity in modifying care plans.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".