Alternate Level of Care Patients in Hospitals: What Does Dementia Have To Do With This?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients in acute care hospitals no longer in need of acute care are called Alternate Level of Care (ALC) patients. This is growing and common all across Canada. A better understanding of this patient population would help to address this problem. METHODS: A chart review was conducted in two hospitals in New Brunswick. All patients designated as ALC on July 1, 2009 had their charts reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty-three per cent of the hospital beds were occupied with ALC patients; 63% had a diagnosis of dementia. The mean length of stay was 379.6 days. Eighty-six per cent were awaiting a long-term care bed in the community. Most patients experienced functional decline during their hospitalization. One year prior to admission, 61% had not been admitted to hospital and 59.2% had had at least one visit to the emergency room. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the ALC patients in hospital have a diagnosis of dementia and have been waiting in hospital for over one year for a long-term care bed in the community. Many participants were recipients of maximum home care in the community, suggesting home maker services alone may not be adequate for some community-dwelling older adults. Early diagnosis of dementia, coupled with appropriate care in the community, may help to curtail the number of patients with dementia who end up in hospital as ALC patients.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it