The Impact of Introducing Restorative Care on Client Outcomes and Health System Effectiveness in an Integrated Health Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support the transition from hospital to community for adults 65 years and older, a restorative care unit was introduced within a regional health authority in Newfoundland and Labrador. A pre-post study design was used to evaluate the impacts of restorative care. This article describes the impact of restorative care on client outcomes and health system utilization. All patients discharged from restorative care during the first year of operation were included in the study. A total of 54 clients were discharged during the first year, with 70% being discharged to a community setting. Consistent with previous studies, statistically significant improvements were noted in function as measured using the modified Barthel Index of Activities of Daily Living and fear of falling as measured using the Fall Efficacy Scale–International. The number of alternate level of care patients in acute care and their length of acute care stay did not decrease during our study period. However, an interesting change was observed: The number of applications for long-term care initiated in acute care decreased. Further examination of the long-term outcomes of discharged patients and of the factors influencing health system outcomes is suggested.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".