Approach to caring for developmentally disabled adults in the community: medical, ethical, and legal considerations.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the medical, ethical, and legal obligations in caring for adults with developmental disabilities (DDs) living in the community. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Google and MEDLINE searches were conducted using the terms disabled, disability, vulnerable, and community. The pertinent legislation was reviewed. MAIN MESSAGE: The treatment of a patient with DDs varies with factors such as the pathogenesis of the patient’s current problem, comorbid conditions, the severity of his or her disabilities, and his or her current social supports. While the shift from institutional to community care for patients with DDs is widely accepted as being beneficial, providing high-quality community care has proven to be challenging. However, there is little research on how to effectively provide community support to adults with DDs. As primary care providers, family physicians are often the first point of contact for patients, and are responsible for both the coordination and the continuity of care. With the movement toward preventive care and early disease detection, the patient’s active participation is also vital. The patient’s values and goals are an essential consideration, even when they are contrary to the patient’s good health or the clinician’s own values. The legislation for vulnerable persons varies among the provinces. Thus, the obligation to report suspected abuse might depend on whether the vulnerable person is living in a care facility or the community; whether the person with the suspicion is a service provider or health care professional; and whether the specific circumstances fall within the legislative definition of abuse or neglect. CONCLUSION: Primary care providers must give adults with DDs compassionate care that respects the patients’ wishes.
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 | 0.020 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".