Unplanned Medication‐Related Hospital Readmission following Transfer to a Residential Care Facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Anecdotal evidence suggests that current medication arrangements following discharge from hospital to residential care facilities sometimes lead to medication delays and errors, which may result in adverse outcomes. Aim To describe a case where delays in initiating a revised antiepileptic medication regimen may have contributed to adverse clinical outcomes for a patient requiring unplanned hospital readmission. Clinical details A 41‐year‐old man was admitted to hospital from a residential care facility with seizures and hyponatraemia. Multiple changes were made to the patient's antiepileptic medication regimen and he was discharged on Day 11 (a Sunday). Following discussion with the residential care facility and their designated community pharmacy, it was agreed that the community pharmacy would dispense his medications and pack them into a dose administration aid, and the residential care facility would organise for a new medication chart to be written by a general practitioner. The hospital doctor prepared a discharge summary and a copy of the discharge prescription was faxed to the community pharmacy. The patient was discharged from hospital with no medications. 3 days later he was readmitted to hospital with seizures, falls and a subdural haemorrhage. On review, the revised antiepileptic regimen had not been implemented at the residential care facility. The patient spent a further 11 days in hospital before returning to the residential care facility. Conclusion Transferring patients from hospital to residential care poses challenges to continuity of care. Improved discharge planning processes to ensure continuity of medication administration on discharge to a residential care facility are urgently needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".