Seniors' perceptions of their medical care. Before admission to a geriatric rehabilitation program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review older patients' perceptions of their medical care before hospital admission and to determine whether there are common perceptions family physicians should address after discharge. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews with qualitative analysis. SETTING: Inpatient geriatric rehabilitation and assessment unit. PARTICIPANTS: Community-living seniors admitted from home or transferred from acute care hospitals. METHOD: Consecutively admitted patients were interviewed within a week of admission. Participants were asked open-ended and Likert-type questions. Responses were analyzed to uncover recurrent themes and descriptive statistics. MAIN FINDINGS: Patients thought physicians' personalities and ability to communicate were important factors in their satisfaction with care received. Loyalty to a physician was an important theme and might have made patients minimize their concerns about care. Most patients were confident in being discharged back into the care of their family physicians. CONCLUSION: Physicians' personalities and communication skills affected whether patients were satisfied with care. Older patients are loyal to their family physicians; they did not identify any issues for family physicians to address with them after discharge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".