MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624846575 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2017.25135

Optimizing Transitions of Care – Hospital to Community

2017· article· en· W2624846575 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Sheridan, Christine Thompson, Tânia Pinheiro, Nicole Robinson, Karen Davies, Nancy J. Whitmore

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPrimary Care and Health Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)NursingCommunity hospitalPrimary careBest practiceHospital dischargeHealth administrationBusinessMedicineProcess managementFamily medicinePolitical sciencePublic healthIntensive care medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discharging patients from the hospital is a complex process, and preventing avoidable readmissions has the potential to improve both the quality of life for patients and the financial sustainability of the healthcare system (Alper et al. 2016). Improving the discharge process is one method to mitigate readmission to the hospital. Historically, St. Thomas Elgin General Hospital (STEGH) consistently experienced higher-than-expected readmission rates, and only 41% of discharge summaries were sent from the hospital to the community primary care within 48 hours. In addition, the overall percentage of patients attending a follow-up appointment with a primary care physician within seven days of discharge from hospital was lower than the provincial average. Through engagement with primary care providers (PCPs) and clinical associates (CAs) and with the use of standard work and monitoring organizational metrics, STEGH has achieved significant improvements.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPrimary Care and Health OutcomesFrench-language works237,207