Care Transition From the Perspectives of Oncological Patients and the Multiprofessional Care Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Integration into the health system is essential for safe care and efficient use of resources. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to analyze the transition of care from the perspective of adult patients with neoplasia of the digestive tract and the multiprofessional care team, identify factors that influence the transition of care, and, collectively with professionals, create actions to improve the transition of care at the study site. METHODS: The Care Transitions Measure-15 was administered in a mixed methods study, with a QUAN→QUAL sequential explanatory approach. The principles of deliberative dialogue were used as a knowledge translation strategy, and data integration was carried out. RESULTS: The average score of the Care Transitions Measure-15 considered satisfactory was 74.3. The care plan factor had an unsatisfactory score of 66. Strategies to improve the care transition were listed by the focus group participants, such as supplementary care protocol for patients with neoplasms of the digestive tract, and providing a single discharge plan containing all information relevant to the treatment and continuity of patient care. CONCLUSION: The low score for the care plan factor indicates weakness in the care transition. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The integrated analysis results indicated that the care transition can be improved by an educational process during discharge planning, implementation of protocols for patients with neoplasia of the digestive tract, and identification of a reference caregiver to help patients navigate the healthcare system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".