MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158722137 · doi:10.1080/15433714.2011.542330

Evidence-based Risk Factors for Adverse Health Outcomes in Older Patients after Discharge Home and Assessment Tools: A Systematic Review

2011· review· en· W2158722137 on OpenAlexaff
Michèle Preyde, Kristie Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence-Based Social Work · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectDepression (economics)Acute careIntensive care medicineHospital dischargeHealth careMEDLINEGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current health care system is discharging elderly patients "quicker" and "sicker" from acute care facilities. Consequently, hospital readmission is common; however, readmission may be only one aspect of adverse outcomes of importance to social work discharge planners. The early recognition of risk factors might ensure a successful transition from the hospital to the home. A systematic review was conducted to identify factors associated with adverse outcomes in older patients discharged from hospital to home. Using a content analysis, factors were characterized in five domains: demographic factors, patient characteristics, medical and biological factors, social factors, and discharge factors. The most frequently reported risks were depression, poor cognition, comorbidities, length of hospital stay, prior hospital admission, functional status, patient age, multiple medications, and lack of social support. A systematic search identified four discharge assessment tools for use with the general population of elderly patients. Practice and research implications are offered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evidence-Based Social WorkSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207