Experience of emergency department patients after a visit for hyperglycaemia: implications for communication and factors affecting adherence postdischarge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While studies have reported factors affecting adherence to diabetic care plans from a chronic disease perspective, no studies have addressed issues with post-discharge adherence facing patients with diabetes after an emergency department (ED) presentation for hyperglycaemia. This study's objectives were to describe patient perspectives on their experience during and after an ED visit for hyperglycaemia and to identify factors that influence postdischarge adherence. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative description (QD) study of adult patients who had visited a Canadian ED for hyperglycaemia. Consistent with QD, purposive sampling was utilised, seeking diversity across age, gender and diabetes type. Participants took part in semistructured interviews and thematic analysis was used to identify and describe core themes. Frequent team meetings were held to review the analysis and to develop the final list of themes used to recode the data set. Analytic insights were tracked using reflective memos and an audit trail documented all steps and decisions. RESULTS: 22 patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes were interviewed from June to October 2019. Participants identified several factors that impacted their ability to adhere to discharge plans: communication of instructions, psychosocial factors (financial considerations, shame and guilt, stigma and mental health), access to follow-up care and paediatric to adult care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the patient experience with the communication of discharge instructions, as well as factors affecting adherence post-ED discharge for hyperglycaemia. Our findings suggest four strategies that could improve the patient experience, improve adherence to discharge plans and potentially decrease the frequency of recurrent ED visits for hyperglycaemia.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".