Resources of Residents for Potential Transition from Long-Term Care to Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Transition from long-term care to the community can have positive effects on residents' health and quality of life and promote the feelings of happiness, safety, and independence. The aim of this study was to examine residents' resources for potential transition to the community after residing in long-term care facilities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted in 8 long-term care institutions for older persons of Kaunas county. The study population comprised 252 residents. The items contained in the interRAI Long-Term Care Facility assessment instrument were used to evaluate a consistent positive outlook, social activities, and discharge potential. Cognitive impairment was measured using the Cognitive Performance Scale. Activities of daily living were measured using the Activities of Daily Living Hierarchy Scale. RESULTS: More than 10% of the residents exhibited no cognitive impairment. One-third of the residents preferred to transition back to the community from their long-term care facility. Two-thirds expressed that they had familiar surroundings, which could be assumed to increase their feeling of safety at home. Social activities prevalent among residents included taking care of plants and walking outdoors. About 40% of the residents were physically independent in the activities of daily living. In spite of these resources, no residents were involved in a discharge process due to the lack of established nursing and social care services and transitional care plans. CONCLUSIONS: With well-organized community services, some residents in long-term care facilities may have enough resources to live in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".