Post-acute care referral and inpatient rehabilitation admission criteria for persons with brain injury across two Canadian provinces
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Investigate health care providers’ perceptions of referral and admission criteria to brain injury inpatient rehabilitation in two Canadian provinces. Methods: Health care providers (n = 345) from brain injury programs (13 acute care and 16 rehabilitation facilities) participated in a cross-sectional web-based survey. The participants rated the likelihood of patients (traumatic brain injury and cerebral hypoxia) to be referred/admitted to rehabilitation and the influence of 19 additional factors (e.g., tracheostomy). The participants reported the perceived usefulness of referral/admission policies and assessment tools used. Results: Ninety-one percent acute care and 98% rehabilitation participants reported the person with traumatic brain injury would likely or very likely be referred/admitted to rehabilitation compared to respectively 43% and 53% for the patient with hypoxia. Two additional factors significantly decreased the likelihood of referral/admission: older age and the combined presence of minimal learning ability, memory impairment and physical aggression. Some significant inter-provincial variations in the perceived referral/admission procedure were observed. Most participants reported policies were helpful. Similar assessment tools were used in acute care and rehabilitation. Conclusions: Health care providers appear to consider various factors when making decisions regarding referral and admission to rehabilitation. Variations in the perceived likelihood of referral/admission suggest a need for standardized referral/admission practices.Implications for RehabilitationVarious patient characteristics influence clinicians’ decisions when selecting appropriate candidates for inpatient rehabilitation.In this study, acute care clinicians were less likely to refer patients that their rehabilitation counter parts would likely have admitted and a patient with hypoxic brain injury was less likely to be referred or admitted in rehabilitation than a patient with a traumatic brain injury.Such discrepancies suggest that policy-makers, managers and clinicians should work together to develop and implement more standardized referral practices and more specific admission criteria in order to ensure equitable access to brain injury rehabilitation services. Various patient characteristics influence clinicians’ decisions when selecting appropriate candidates for inpatient rehabilitation. In this study, acute care clinicians were less likely to refer patients that their rehabilitation counter parts would likely have admitted and a patient with hypoxic brain injury was less likely to be referred or admitted in rehabilitation than a patient with a traumatic brain injury. Such discrepancies suggest that policy-makers, managers and clinicians should work together to develop and implement more standardized referral practices and more specific admission criteria in order to ensure equitable access to brain injury rehabilitation services.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».