Predictors of Functional Improvement, Length of Stay, and Discharge Destination in the Context of an Assess and Restore Program in Hospitalized Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assess and restore programs such as Humber's Elderly Assess and Restore Team (HEART) provide short-term restorative care to prevent functional decline in hospitalized older adults. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to determine which HEART participant characteristics are predictive of functional improvement, decreased length of stay, return to home, and decreased readmission to hospital. Electronic health records were retrospectively examined to gather predictor data. Differences in functional status, excessive length of stay, discharge destination, and hospital readmissions were compared in 547 HEART patients and 547 matched eligible non-participants using ANOVAs, Mann-Whitney, and chi-square tests. The greatest functional improvements (percent Barthel change) were seen in those requiring a one-person assist (M = 39.56) and using a walker (M = 46.07). Difference in excessive length of stay between HEART and non-HEART participants was greatest in those who used a walker (Mdn = 3.80), required a one-person assist (Mdn = 2.00), had a high falls risk (Mdn = 1.80), and had either a lower urinary tract infection (Mdn = 2.25) or pneumonia (Mdn = 1.70). Predictor variables did not affect readmission to the hospital nor return to home. Predictive characteristics should be considered when enrolling patients to assess and restore programs for optimal clinical 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".