MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215987028 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.63

Reasons for Returning to the Emergency Department: Perspectives of Patients and the Liaison Nurse Clinician

2014· article· en· W2215987028 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Molywan Vat, Carol Common, Andréa Maria Laizner, Christine Maheu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentFeelingMedicinePerspective (graphical)Health careDescriptive statisticsNursingEmergency medicineMedical emergencyFamily medicinePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The authors wanted to understand the reasons why patients discharged from internal medicine units return to the emergency department within a short term period. The purpose of the study was to explore patients’ perspective of their reasons for returning to the emergency department within fourteen days post-discharge from an internal medicine unit, and to examine how these reasons relate to those determined by the liaison nurse clinician prior to discharge.Methods: A qualitative descriptive design was selected to develop the study and individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants. A convenience sample of eight participants was recruited from a major teaching hospital in Montreal, Canada. The study triangulated three different data sources, which were the patient’s perspective through the interview and the liaison nurse clinician’s perspective through the use of two evaluation tools, which were the Bounceback Probability Legend and the LACE Index Scoring Tool.Results: The participants attributed their return to the emergency department due to 1) being discharged too soon, 2) feeling weak at discharge, 3) having limited discharge instructions prior to discharge, and 4) having limited resources available to rely on for help once home. It was also noticed that participants went through a decision-making process for choosing to return to the emergency department. Additionally, the liaison nurse clinician’s evaluation tools identified different reasons from those the participants had attributed to their return to the emergency department.Conclusions: The findings suggest that health care professionals must evaluate and assess patients on several components upon their discharge, such as the understanding of their illness, primary concerns, and readiness prior to discharge. The study provides further data in supporting the need of patient’s involvement in the process of discharge planning.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person CareSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207