MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992888585 · doi:10.1177/0733464815577140

Discharge Criteria and Follow-Up Support for Dementia Care Units

2015· article· en· W1992888585 on OpenAlexaff
W. Ben Mortenson, Anne Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineGerontologyCognitive impairmentHospital dischargeCognitionIntensive care medicinePsychiatryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialized dementia care units (DCUs) house individuals whose behaviors cannot be managed in other settings. To ensure environmental fit, admission/discharge criteria are recommended for DCUs; however, there is no consensus about what criteria should be used. This study aimed to describe, in a random sample of DCUs, the current admission criteria, current/recommended discharge criteria, and services to support discharge. Usable surveys were returned by 23 of 30 facilities. Residents were most frequently admitted because they had a diagnosis of dementia and exhibited cognitive/behavioral problems. The four most common discharge criteria in place/recommended were resident ability to manage in a non-specialized long-term care environment, lack of socially inappropriate behaviors, dependency in activities of daily living, and inability to participate in dementia care activities. These findings suggest that discharge from DCUs is relatively ad hoc. The study lays the groundwork for future research to evaluate the use/appropriateness of these criteria.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied GerontologySame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207