Improving Communications With Patients and Families in Geriatric Care. The How, When, and What
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been little published literature examining the unique communication challenges older adults pose for health care providers. Using an explanatory mixed-methods design, this study explored patients’ and their family/caregivers’ experiences communicating with health care providers on a Canadian tertiary care, inpatient Geriatric unit between March and September 2018. In part 1, the modified patient–health care provider communication scale was used and responses scored using a 5-point scale. In part 2, one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted and responses transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed. Thirteen patients and 7 family/caregivers completed part 1. Both groups scored items pertaining to adequacy of information sharing and involvement in decision-making in the lowest 25th percentile. Two patients and 4 family/caregivers participated in telephone interviews in part 2. Interview transcript analysis resulted in key themes that fit into the “How, When, and What” framework outlining the aspects of communication most important to the participants. Patients and family/caregivers identified strategic use of written information and predischarge family meetings as potentially valuable tools to improve communication and shared decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".