Navigating ethical discharge planning: A case study in older adult rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethical issues are becoming more complex as individuals live longer with increased disability and medical needs. This article elucidates common ethical issues encountered in discharge planning with older adults. METHODS: We conducted normative ethical analysis of a clinical case using methods of philosophical inquiry, including thick description, reflexivity, conceptual clarification and examination of competing arguments for internal consistency. RESULTS: The analysis demonstrates how health-care teams struggle to balance protection from harm while honouring informed choices. We argue that ethical discharge planning requires judicious identification of client values, even if these conflict with team determinations of best interests. CONCLUSION: Dialogue is needed to identify risks, help clients determine their personal level of acceptable risk and determine provisions to minimise risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".