MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282962326 · doi:10.1097/rnj.0000000000000375

Impact of Reengineered Discharge Toolkit on Patients Undergoing Total Joint Surgeries

2022· article· en· W4282962326 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueRehabilitation Nursing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHospital dischargePatient dischargeDischarge planningJoint replacementPhysical therapyEmergency medicineMedical emergencyNursingIntensive care medicineSurgeryMEDLINEArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Poorly coordinated care transitions account for nearly one fifth of Medicare hospital readmissions within 30 days postdischarge. The primary aim of this pilot project was to determine the impact of the Reengineered Discharge (RED) Toolkit on patient knowledge for self-management, satisfaction with the discharge process, readiness for discharge, discharge time, and 30-day readmission rate following hip or knee joint replacement or revision surgeries. Staff adherence with the RED Toolkit was also measured.Thirty adult patients received the intervention of the RED Toolkit. Patient knowledge for self-management ranged from 85.2% to 92.6%; satisfaction with the discharge process scores increased from 33% to 59.2%; patient readiness for discharge scores increased from 2% to 64%. Discharge times decreased. On average, patients left the unit 5.67 (±2.52) hours after the written discharge order. The all-cause 30-day readmission rate was reduced to 3.3%. Staff achieved a RED Toolkit adherence rate of 86.8%. Findings provide a basis for developing a coordinated discharge planning process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRehabilitation NursingSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207