Who's next? Referral prioritisation criteria for home care occupational therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/aims: Prioritising referrals on waiting lists is common practice in rehabilitation. However, little is known about the exact criteria that are used in home-based occupational therapy to determine the level of urgency. This study aimed to identify prioritisation criteria in home-based occupational therapy services in Quebec, Canada, and to describe how they are used in practice. Methods: A mail and telephone survey of 55 home care programmes across Quebec was conducted. Participants provided information about occupational therapy wait times, and referral prioritisation tools and practices. A detailed quantitative content analysis compared the content of all referral prioritisation tools. Results: This study identified 48 main categories of referral prioritisation criteria, but only nine of them were present in the majority of tools. Wait times vary greatly between priority levels, with a median of 2 days for urgent referrals and 20 months for low-priority referrals. In general, problems related to safety and remaining at home are considered more urgent than problems related to independence, quality of life, and activities outside the home. Conclusions: These findings highlight the need for more consistent and evidence-based prioritisation criteria for occupational therapy in home care in order to facilitate equitable access to these services.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".