Fractured Care: A Window Into Emergency Transitions in Care for LTC Residents With Complex Health Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: For long-term care (LTC) residents, transfers to emergency departments (EDs) can be associated with poor health outcomes. We aimed to describe characteristics of residents transferred, factors related to decisions during transfer, care received in emergency medical services (EMS), ED settings, outcomes on return to LTC, and times of transfer segments along the transition. Method: We prospectively followed 637 transitions to an ED in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, over a 12-month period. Data were captured through an electronic Transition Tracking Tool and interviews with health care professionals. Results: Common events triggering transfer were falls (26.8%), sudden change in condition (23.5%), and shortness of breath (19.8%). Discrepancies existed between reason for transfer, EMS reported chief complaint, and ED diagnosis. Many transfers resulted in resident return directly to LTC (42.7%). Discussion: Avoidable transfers may put residents at risk of receiving inappropriate care. Standardized communication strategies to highlight changes in resident condition are warranted.
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".