MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964515971 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2004.16270

The Impact of Hospital Restructuring on Home Care Nursing

2004· article· en· W1964515971 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Suzanna Keller, Duncan L. Hunter, Sam Shortt

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringNursingMedicineHealth careNursing homesBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Health reform in many industrialized countries has prompted the shift from institutional to community care. In Ontario, this approach was instigated through the Health Services Restructuring Commission. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether changes in the hospital sector between 1996 and 2000 resulted in changes in the provision of home-care services by nurses and practical nurses. METHODS: This study was a retrospective trend analysis of linked hospitalization and home-care utilization data for Kingston for 1996 to 2000. The measures include the rate of home care and the volume and intensity of home-care services. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2000 there was a net 4% increase in the age-gender standardized rate of admission to home-care nursing services, with a 10% rate rise between 1996 and 1997. The total volume of home-care services increased during the study, as did the average intensity of home-care service delivery over the first month post-hospitalization during the first four years. This article will give readers their first look at the changes in home-care nursing following hospital restructuring in Kingston.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207