MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331387933 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2010-0038

An Evaluation of Community-Based Discharge Planning in Acute Mental Health Care

2010· article· en· W2331387933 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Elsabeth Jensen, Patty Chapman, Amy Davis, Cheryl Forchuk, Bill Seymour, Penny Witcher, Denise E. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Mental Health AssociationYork UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Mental Health AssociationOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsPlannerDischarge planningMental healthAgency (philosophy)Community serviceService (business)MedicineHospital dischargeNursingAcute careService delivery frameworkMedical emergencyHealth careBusinessPsychiatryMarketingPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the effectiveness of a discharge planning service that was remodelled and relocated from a hospital to community-based setting. The study used a single group program evaluation strategy. In this “in-reach” model, the discharge planner is based with the community service, and visits the hospital daily to meet with all admitted clients to offer discharge services. Through analyses of administrative data and interviews with clients, the study found that readmission rates were 40% lower in the year following the change in service delivery model. This change was statistically significant. Agency partners used the findings to modify their program during the course of the evaluation. Findings will be helpful for other acute care mental health services.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207