The use of acute hospital services by elderly residents of nursing and residential care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare hospitalisation rates by cause of admission, hospital death rates and length of stay for residents from nursing and residential care homes with those in the community. This is a retrospective study of acute hospital emergency admissions in one health district, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth between April 1996 and March 1997. Data linkage and manual look up were used to derive emergency hospital admissions for residents of care homes aged 65 and over. Admission rates were calculated for cause, length of stay and hospital death for residents of care homes and in the community with relative risks. The relative risk of emergency admission from a care home compared with the community was 1.39 for all diagnoses, 2.68 for all injuries, and 3.96 for fracture of neck of femur. The relative risk of dying in hospital for care home residents was 2.58 overall, and 3.64 in the first 48 hours of a hospital stay (all P-values <0.0001). Admission rates were higher from residential than from nursing homes. There was some increase in admissions from homes during holiday periods and over Christmas. In conclusion, there are major difficulties in monitoring admissions from nursing and residential care homes due to poor quality recording and inaccuracies in NHS coding. This was compounded by an absence of data on the age and sex profile and healthcare needs of the resident population in care homes. Prospective studies are required to ascertain when admission is avoidable and when it is appropriate. The information strategy needs to ensure that routine data sources are capable of monitoring the use of hospital services by residents of care homes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".