“When Things Are Really Complicated, We Call the Social Worker”: Post-Hip-Fracture Care Transitions for Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social workers play a key role in the delivery of interdisciplinary health care. However, in the past decade, concerns have been raised about social work's sustainability and contributions in a changing health care sector. These changes come at a time when older patients are more complex and vulnerable than ever before. In this article, using a strengths-based approach, the authors examine the key contributions made by social workers working with older patients with hip fracture as they strive to achieve successful care transitions. Twenty-five interviews with health care professionals (HCPs) were conducted and then analyzed using an analytical coding framework. Although social workers are vital, they are often underused and overlooked in the care of hip fracture patients. The authors sketch the important contributions that social workers make to care transitions after hip fracture, specifically informational continuity; patient-HCP relational continuity; conflict resolution; mediation among family, patient, and HCP (for example, doctors and nurses); collaboration with family caregivers and community supports; and relocation counseling.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".