<p>Engaging patients and informal caregivers to improve safety and facilitate person- and family-centered care during transitions from hospital to home &ndash; a qualitative descriptive study</p>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose was to describe patients and informal caregivers’ perspectives on how to improve and monitor care during transitions from hospital to home as part of a larger research study to prioritize the components that most influence the development of successful care transition interventions. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study between July and August 2016, during which time semi-structured telephone interviews (n=8) were completed with patients and informal caregivers across select Canadian provinces. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed. Results: Main themes included: the need for effective communication between providers and patients and informal caregivers; the need for improving key aspects of the discharge process; and increasing patients and informal caregivers involvement in care practices. Participants also provided suggestions on how to best monitor care transitions. Conclusion: This study highlighted the following strategies with patients and informal caregivers: focus on effective communication regarding important information; provide appropriate resources; and increase involvement. Future research is needed to incorporate the input from patients and informal caregivers into the design and implementation of care transition interventions. Keywords: care transitions, patient engagement, patient safety, person- and family-centered care
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it