Mediators of marginalisation in discharge planning with older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Returning home or moving to a more supportive setting upon discharge from inpatient health-care services can have a tremendous impact on the lives of older adults and their families. Institutional concerns with patient safety and expedience can overshadow health-care professionals' commitments to collaborative discharge planning. In light of many competing demands and agendas, it can be unclear what is driving discharge-planning processes and outcomes. This paper presents the results of a study examining discharge planning in an older adult rehabilitation unit in a Canadian urban setting. Using microethnographic case studies, we explored the perspectives of older adults, family members and health-care professionals. Drawing on concepts of relational autonomy to guide the analysis, we found that discourses of ageing-as-decline, beliefs privileging health-care professionals' expertise and conventions guiding discharge planning intersected to marginalise older adult patients in discharge-planning decision making. Discharge planning in the research setting was driven by norms of ‘protecting physical safety’ at the expense of older adults’ self-declared interests and values. Such practices resulted in frequent recommendations of 24-hour care, which have significant personal, social and financial implications for older adults and their families, and ultimately might undermine clients' or health-care systems' aims. The analysis revealed social, political and institutional biases that diminish the rights and autonomy of older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".