Transition of care for hospitalized elderly patients—Development of a discharge checklist for hospitalists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discharge from the hospital is a critical transition point in a patient's care. Incomplete handoffs at discharge can lead to adverse events for patients and result in avoidable rehospitalization. Care transitions are especially important for elderly patients and other high-risk patients who have multiple comorbidities. Standardizing the elements of the discharge process may help to address the gaps in quality and safety that occur when patients transition from the hospital to an outpatient setting. METHODS: The Society of Hospital Medicine's Hospital Quality and Patient Safety committee assembled a panel of care transition researchers, process improvement experts, and hospitalists to review the literature and develop a checklist of processes and elements required for ideal discharge of adult patients. The discharge checklist was presented at the Society of Hospital Medicine's Annual Meeting in April 2005, where it was reviewed and revised by more than 120 practicing hospitalists and hospital-based nurses, case managers, and pharmacists. The final checklist was endorsed by the Society of Hospital Medicine. RESULTS: The finalized checklist is a comprehensive list of the processes and elements considered necessary for optimal patient handoff at hospital discharge. This checklist focused on medication safety, patient education, and follow-up plans. CONCLUSIONS: The development of content and process standards for discharge is the first step in improving the handoff of care from the inpatient to the posthospital setting. Refining this checklist for patients with specific diagnoses, in specific age categories, and with specific discharge destinations may further improve information transfer and ultimately affect patient outcomes.
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 | 0.055 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".