MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2995607638

Unplanned readmissions to BC hospitals: How can understanding patient experiences and health system expert information drive rate reduction policy?

2019· article· en· W2995607638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melodie Carew

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)BusinessHealth information technologyActuarial scienceMedicinePublic relationsMedical emergencyHealth carePolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia’s patients experience more unplanned readmissions to hospitals than the Canadian average. These experiences are problematic for the patient and health system alike. Readmissions increase patients’ health risks and result in budgetary and efficacy costs to the health system. While progress has been made to isolate risk factors and target interventions, Canada’s rates continue to increase with BC and Saskatchewan’s rates the highest of the provinces. Through a review of the literature, interviews with health system experts including readmission researchers, and by conducting a survey targeted to patients with lived readmission experiences, this study seeks to locate and address the most fundamental and actionable drivers of the problem. Best practices for reducing readmission rates are reviewed across relevant criteria and priority practices are selected from these. Resolving preventable readmissions requires recognition of the impacts on care quality that the lack of integration within the provincial health system’s processes creates.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicHealthcare Policy and Management→French-language works237,207→