What Makes Stroke Rehabilitation Patients Complex? Clinician Perspectives and the Role of Discharge Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 80% of people who survive a stroke have on average five other conditions and a wide range of psychosocial issues. Attention to biopsychosocial issues has led to the identification of 'complex patients'. No single definition of 'patient complexity' exists; therefore, applied health researchers seek to understand 'patient complexity' as it relates to a specific clinical context. OBJECTIVE: To understand how 'patient complexity' is conceptualized by clinicians, and to position the findings within the existing literature on patient complexity. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach was utilized. Twenty-three stroke rehabilitation clinicians participated in four focus groups. RESULTS: Five elements of patient complexity were identified: medical/functional issues, social determinant factors, social/family support, personal characteristics, and health system factors. Using biopsychosocial factors to identify complexity results in all patients being complex; operationalization of the definition led to the identification of systemic elements. A disconnect between acute, inpatient rehabilitation and community services was identified as a trigger for increased complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Patient complexity is not a dichotomous state. If applying existing complexity definitions, all patients are complex. This study extends the understanding by suggesting a structural element of complexity from manageable to less manageable complexity based on ability to 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".