MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118079682 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaf122.597

Bluestone’s Emergency Department Early Response Program: Promoting High-Quality and Safe Transitions

2025· article· en· W7118079682 on OpenAlexaff
Grace F Wittenberg, Martha Etzell, Peter Serina, Nichole E. Stetten, Ann Reddy, Ellen McCreedy

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentDementiaHealth careDeliriumCommunity hospitalRespite careAssisted living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Almost half of all Assisted Living Community (ALC) residents transfer to the emergency department (ED) each year. For people living with dementia (PLWD), providing a medical history can be a challenge, resulting in prolonged stays and risk of delirium or hospital acquired infections. Bluestone Physician Services developed a ED early response program in which complex care managers (CCM) receive an electronic Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) notification when one of their patients registers at an ED. If the notification occurs during business hours, the CCMs call the ED using a script and follow-up with a structured fax. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 12 CCMs involved in the program to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the program. There were five themes: patients with dementia and those on hospice were especially likely to benefit from the program; strengths of the program, including increased communication between Bluestone and ED providers; weakness of the program, including a lack of awareness of the program among variable ED staff and challenges with timing the call and fax to maximize benefit. The CCMs also shared some learnings and adaptations that increased contact rate over time and individual success stories. In this session, we will also provide tips on how to integrate real-time ADT notifications into CCM workflows. Next steps include examining the ED provider, patient and caregiver perceptions of the program, quantifying the impact of the program on utilization, and analyzing how the program would perform in other health care settings.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207