MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6928677192 · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1735

Patients’ and family caregivers’ experiences with a newly implemented hospital at home program in British Columbia, Canada: Preliminary results

2023· article· en· W6928677192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Methods and Mixture Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineObservational studyData collectionScale (ratio)Research programWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hospital at Home (HaH) model of care, which enables the provision of acute-level care in the patient’s own home as an alternative to brick and mortar hospital admission, was introduced in British Columbia, Canada in November 2020, starting with 9 inpatient “beds” in the community. The AT-HOME research group applied a patient-oriented approach to evaluate the patients’ and family caregivers’ (FCGs) experiences with the program as it was implemented and expanded throughout Victoria, BC. In this paper, we discuss the development of the survey instruments, including process and timelines (three phases); and present preliminary findings of the observational research study (six months of patient and FCG feedback data). The preliminary results show that 100% of patients (n=75) and 95% of FCGs (n=57) had an overall positive experience with the program (rated 6-10 on a 10-point scale where 0 meant ‘very poor’ and 10 ‘very good’). 100% of these patients and 96% of these FCGs would recommend the program to their friends and family and 97% of these patients and 96% of these FCGs would choose the program again if faced with the same situation. The preliminary results on metrics pertaining to care quality; information sharing and experiences with the admission and discharge processes; FCG’s roles, medication management, and more are discussed here. The final results of the patient and FCG experiences will be reported at the end of the data collection period. We can conclude that this new HaH program has been positively received by patients and FCGs thus far and they support program expansion <strong>Experience Framework</strong> This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (<a href="https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework">https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework</a>). <ul> <li><a href="https://www.theberylinstitute.org/page/PXSEARCH#resource-list-all/?view_28_page=1&view_28_filters=%5B%7B%22field%22%3A%22field_38%22%2C%22operator%22%3A%22in%22%2C%22value%22%3A%5B%22PXJ%20Article%22%5D%7D%2C%7B%22field%22%3A%22field_40%22%2C%22operator%22%3A%22in%22%2C%22value%22%3A%5B%22Innovation%20%26%20Technology%22%5D%7D%5D">Access other PXJ articles</a> related to this lens.</li> <li><a href="https://www.theberylinstitute.org/page/Ecosystem-InnovationTechnology">Access other resources</a> related to this lens</li> </ul>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicBayesian Methods and Mixture ModelsFrench-language works237,207