Patient and caregiver experience with delayed discharge from a hospital setting: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Delayed hospital discharge occurs when patients are medically cleared but remain hospitalized because a suitable care setting is not available. Delayed discharge typically results in reduced levels of treatment, placing patients at risk of functional decline, falls and hospital-related adverse events. Caregivers often take on an active role in hospital to mitigate these risks. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to summarize the literature on patient and caregiver experiences with delayed hospital discharge. SEARCH STRATEGY: Seven electronic databases and grey literature were searched using keywords including alternate level of care, delayed discharge, patients, caregivers and experiences. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included articles met the following criteria: (a) patient or caregiver population 18 years or older; (b) delayed discharge from a hospital setting; (c) included experiences with delayed discharge; (d) peer-reviewed or grey literature; and (e) published between 1 January 1998 and 16 July 2018. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted from the seven included articles using Microsoft Excel 2016 to facilitate a thorough analysis and comparison. MAIN RESULTS: Study themes were grouped into five elements of the delayed discharge experience: (1) overall uncertainty; (2) impact of hospital staff and physical environment; (3) mental and physical deterioration; (4) lack of engagement in decision making and need for advocacy; and (5) initial disbelief sometimes followed by reluctant acceptance. CONCLUSION: This review provides a foundation to guide future research, policies and practices to improve patient and caregiver experiences with delayed hospital discharge, including enhanced communication with patients and families and programmes to reduce deconditioning.
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 | 0.013 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".