Care transitions for older patients with musculoskeletal disorders: continuity from the providers’ perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Care transitions are a common and frequently adverse aspect of health care, resulting in a high-risk period for both care quality and patient safety. Patients who have complex care needs and undergo treatment in multiple care settings, such as older patients with musculoskeletal disorders, may be at higher risk for poor care transitions. METHODS: Key informant interviews were used to gather in-depth information on transitional care issues, particularly those which impact informational continuity, from the perspective of a range of health professionals (η=17) in care settings relevant to the care continuum of older patients with hip fractures. RESULTS: Three transitional care themes were identified; medical complexity impacts care trajectories, larger circles of care can be both beneficial and challenging, and a variety of channels and modes are required for meaningful information exchange. Many issues cut across each care setting, and address challenges to informational continuity among and between health care providers, patients, and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Medical complexity enlarges the circle of care which challenges care continuity. There may be fundamental elements which, regardless of care setting, strengthen transitional care quality. Standardized transitional care processes might help to offset informational discontinuity across care settings as a result of this population's larger circles of care.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".