Communication patterns in coordinated care planning conferences with older patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When an older patient is discharged from a hospital in Sweden, a care plan in cooperation with the patient should be made through coordinated care planning (COCP). Previous research has described difficulties in the discharge process; consequently, it is important to develop additional knowledge and investigate both whether and how patients are given the opportunity to participate in COCP. The aim of the present study was to determine if older patients are given the opportunity to participate in COCP meetings, and if so, what characterizes these meetings. Method: This qualitative, descriptive study is based on non-participant observation of interactions between older patients and care staff at six COCP meetings. The data collected were analyzed using directed content analysis and critical discourse analysis (CDA). Results: The main findings indicate a lack of patient participation in all the COCP meetings held at the hospital. The dialogues in that context were less information intensive, and a professional perspective dominated. The situation in advanced home care (AHC) was the opposite; already from the outset, it was evident that the patient was the chief informant and that the patient’s perspective predominated during the dialogues. Conclusions: General differences in the way the dialogues were initiated and in how they progressed were observed between the hospital and AHC. Due to both shortage of time in health care today and financial issues, it is important to find solutions that incorporate the older patient’s experiences as well as professional knowledge.
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 | 0.007 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".