Discharge Decision-Making, Enabling Occupations, and Client-Centred Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists working in hospitals are confronted with increasingly complex discharge decisions. However, the relationship of discharge-planning strategies to the professional concepts of client-centred practice and enabling occupations has been unclear. PURPOSE: This study explored the relationship between the models of decision-making used by occupational therapists, and the professional issues of enabling occupation and client-centred practice. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 occupational therapists. Data were analyzed for the presence and emergence of themes. RESULTS: Therapists try to balance the sometimes competing issues of safety and autonomy. Therapists often engage in negotiated decision-making. However, clients are sometimes excluded, despite therapists' commitment to client-centred processes. Consideration of occupations is often neglected. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Client-defined models of decision-making are insufficient for frail, cognitively- impaired people. A new, client-centred Negotiated Model of Decision-Making is proposed, which facilitates decisions to enable older people with their occupations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".