Modeling and analyzing hospital to home transition processes of frail older adults using the functional resonance analysis method (FRAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study was to model and analyze hospital to home transition processes of frail older adults in order to identify the challenges within this process. A multi-phase, multi-sited and mixed methods design was utilized, in which, Phase 1 included collecting semi-structured interviews and focus group data, and Phase 2 consisted of six patient/caregiver dyad prospective case studies. This study was conducted in three hospitals in three cities in a single province in Canada. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) was employed to model daily operations of the transition process. The perspectives of both healthcare providers and patients/caregivers were used to build the FRAM model. The transition model was then tested using a customized version of the FRAM. The six patient/caregiver cases were used in the process of testing the FRAM model. The results of building the FRAM model showed that five categories of functions contributed to the transition model, including admission, assessment, synthesis, decision-making, and readmission. The outcomes of using the customized version of the FRAM revealed challenges affecting the transition process including waitlists for geriatric units, team-based care, lack of a discharge planner, financial concerns, and follow-up plans. The findings of this study could assist managers and other decision makers to improve the transition processes of frail older adults by addressing these challenges. The FRAM method employed in this study can be applied widely to identify work practices that are more or less successful, so that procedures and practices can be adapted to nudge healthcare processes towards paths that will yield better outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".