Social work practice for COVID-19 in the acute hospital setting: Recommendations for psychosocial assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The global coronavirus SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak caused immediate, far-reaching social schisms and created unprecedented challenges for hospital social work services worldwide. Existing hospital disaster plans were inadequately equipped for pandemics and organisational plans needed to quickly adapt to respond to the increased clinical demands and unique logistical considerations triggered by the virus. Literature reviews provided little in the way of precise guidance for practitioners. Hospital social workers responded not only to a new cohort of patients, but also to all patients affected by the societal repercussions of the pandemic and by governments’ attempts to mitigate the impacts of the virus. Psychosocial assessments, the bedrock of social work intervention, needed to adapt and evolve to encompass and address the exacerbation of existing social risks in new ways. This article originated from the authors’ interest in identifying practice implications for hospital social work during the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors briefly outline the distinct impact of COVID-19 on psychosocial issues such as domestic and family violence, elder abuse, child protection, financial stress and social isolation. They create a forum of international hospital social work centres to develop a consensus approach for addressing these issues in the context of a social work psychosocial assessment.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".