Comparison of Older Adults' and Occupational Therapists' Awareness of Functional Abilities at Discharge from Rehabilitation with Actual Performance in the Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare older adults' and occupational therapists' (OTs) awareness of patients' functional abilities at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation using patient performance in the home as the criterion for functional abilities. Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation unit of a large community hospital followed by observation at home. Participants: Thirty-four older adult patients who live alone and had acute hospital admission for orthopedic, medical, or cardiopulmonary primary diagnoses followed by inpatient rehabilitation. Measurements: Patients' and OTs' perceptions of patients' abilities at hospital discharge were recorded for basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility using the Functional Autonomy Measuring System. One week following discharge, patients' functional performance was measured at home. Awareness was calculated as the difference between perceptions and performance. Results: There was greater than 82% exact agreement between patients' and OTs' perceptions for: eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring and walking, but only 52% agreement for meal preparation. Patients' awareness for all ADLs and mobility was about 80% accurate except for stair-climbing, meal preparation, and medication management. OTs' awareness was greatest for tasks routinely assessed while in hospital (e.g., eating, dressing, toileting, transferring, walking and stair-climbing) and for telephone use and meal preparation. Overall patients' awareness was equal to or higher than OTs' awareness for all activities except stair-climbing, meal preparation, telephone use, and medication management. Conclusions: Awareness of functional abilities varies by activity and rater and is an important element of discharge planning for community living.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".