“Just another fish in the pond”: the transitional care experience of a hip fracture patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Miscommunication and lack of coordination can compromise care quality and patient safety during transitions in care, especially for medically complex older adults. Little research has been done to investigate care transitions from the perspective of those receiving and providing care. METHODS: This study explored multiple care transitions for an elderly hip fracture patient, post-surgery. Interviews and observations were conducted with the patient, their family caregivers, and health care providers, at each point of transition between four different care settings. RESULTS: FOUR KEY THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED OVER THE PATIENTS CARE TRAJECTORY: 'Missing Crucial Coversations'-Patient and family caregivers did not feel involved or informed about decisions in care; 'Who's Who'-Confusion about the role of health care providers; 'Ready or Not'-Not knowing what to expect or what is expected; and, 'Playing by the Rules'-Health system policies and procedures hinder individualized care. CONCLUSION: Study findings point to the need for the health care system to engage patients and family caregivers more fully and consistently in the process of care transitions as well as the importance of understanding these processes from multiple perspectives. Recommendations for system integration are proposed with a focus on transitional care.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".