Older people’s perception of their readiness for discharge and postdischarge use of community support and services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine older patients perception of their readiness for discharge from hospital to home and use of community supports postdischarge, including readmission. BACKGROUND: Early discharge leaves little time for older people, families and professionals to prepare. The perspectives of patients are essential to therapeutic caring; however, few studies have examined patient's perception of their readiness for discharge. DESIGN: A quantitative, descriptive and correlational design was used. Data were collected from older patients (n = 335) at discharge and postdischarge using the Readiness for Discharge Scale (Weiss & Piacentine; Journal of Nursing Measurement, 14, 2006, 163) and a Demographic and Community Resource Questionnaire. FINDINGS: At 6 weeks postdischarge, almost one-quarter had been readmitted. Family support had increased, yet a minimal increase in formal services was found. At discharge, differences in readiness existed between the younger and older old. Significant relationships existed between lower perception of readiness at discharge and increased use of informal and formal support post-discharge. Lower perception of readiness had a significant relationship with readmission in the older old. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of readiness reflect the patient's reality and may be significant to discharge preparation and arrangements for support. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Older patients' perspectives should be included in discharge decisions and in individualised approaches by nurses to discharge preparation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".