A sociological exploration of the tensions related to interprofessional collaboration in acute-care discharge planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient discharge is a key concern in hospitals, particularly in acute care, given the multifaceted and challenging nature of patients' healthcare needs. Policies on discharge have identified the importance of interprofessional collaboration, yet research has described its limitations in this clinical context. This study aimed to extend our understanding of interprofessional interactions related to discharge in a general internal medicine setting by using sociological theories to illuminate the existence of, and interplay between, structural factors and microlevel practices. An ethnographic approach was employed to obtain an in-depth insight into healthcare providers' perspectives, behaviours, and interactions regarding discharge. Data collection involved observations, interviews, and document analysis. Approximately 65 hours of observations were undertaken, 23 interviews were conducted with healthcare providers, and government and hospital discharge documents were collected. Data were analysed using a directed content approach. The findings indicate the existence of a medically dominated division of healthcare labour in patient discharge with opportunities for some interprofessional negotiations; the role of organizational routines in facilitating and challenging interprofessional negotiations in patient discharge; and tensions in organizational priorities that impact an interprofessional approach to discharge. The findings provide insight into the various levels at which interventions can be targeted to improve interprofessional collaboration in discharge while recognizing the organizational tensions that challenge an interprofessional approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".