Hip-Fracture Care in Rural Southwestern Ontario: An Ethnographic Study of Patient Transitions and Physiotherapy Handoffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine information exchange by physiotherapists during care handoffs of patients with hip fracture in a rural health care setting. METHODS: This qualitative ethnographic study used observation and interviews of 11 networks of patients with hip fracture (n=11), family caregivers (n=8), and health care providers (n=24). Patients were followed from acute care through each subsequent care setting. Data were supplemented by health care records and policy documents. RESULTS: Findings revealed that handoffs were less successful when information transfer was untimely or incomplete. Family caregivers experienced challenges in obtaining information required to facilitate the handoff, especially when direct contact with physiotherapists was not possible as a result of distance or other factors. Physiotherapists had to navigate multiple data sources to retrieve important information, and managed information gaps in various ways. Information flow was often unidirectional and suggested no further clinical accountability for the discharging physiotherapist. CONCLUSIONS: Providing information in a structured and timely fashion facilitated physiotherapy handoffs. Inadequate handoffs compromised continuity of care, delayed progress in rehabilitation, and resulted in families' missing information of vital importance to their caregiving role. A multi-directional exchange of information is needed between patients, families, and health care providers across care settings.
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".