MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1942809447 · doi:10.5334/ijic.85

Breaks in continuity of care and the rural senior transferred for medical care under regionalisation

2003· article· en· W1942809447 on OpenAlexaff
H. Jay Biem, Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos, Debra Morgan, Henry B. Biem, Raymond Pong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Disease Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rural Health Research SocietyUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContinuity of careRegionalisationNursingIT service continuityConsistency (knowledge bases)MedicineContingencyIntegrated careAcute careHealth careMedical emergencyComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Continuity of care, defined as the patient experiencing coherent care over time and place, is challenged when a rural senior with multiple medical problems is transferred to a regional hospital for acute care. From an illustrative case of an older patient with pneumonia and atrial fibrillation, we catalogue potential breaks in continuity of care. Optimal continuity of care is characterised not only by regular contact with the providers who establish collaboration with patients and their caregivers, but also by communication, co-ordination, contingency, convenience, and consistency. Because it is not possible to have the same providers continuously available (relational continuity), for continuity of care, there is a need for integrative system approaches, such as: (1) policy and standards, disease management programs, integrated clinical pathways (management continuity), (2) electronic health information systems and telecommunications technology (communication continuity). The evaluation of these approaches requires measures that account for the multi-faceted nature of continuity 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated CareSame topicChronic Disease Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207