Older adults with complex care needs’ experiences within a hospital-to-home transition patient navigator program: A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Older adults living with complex care needs are often hospitalized due to poor community support. Recommendations for improving patient and family experiences include having a patient navigator to support patients and caregivers in hospital and community settings. This study aimed to report on older adults’ and caregivers’ experiences of receiving services from a hospital-to-home patient navigation program. Methods A qualitative descriptive study was conducted. Telephone interviews were conducted with 14 older adults with complex care needs or their family caregivers in Toronto, Ontario from 2020 to 2021. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Four themes were identified: (1) Initial Hesitancy; (2) Meeting Evolving Needs; (3) Unexpected Benefits of Patient Navigation; and (4) The Value of Patient Navigation in Sustaining Aging-in-Place. Participants viewed all their interactions with the navigator as positive, and perceived navigators improved their quality of care. Discussion These study findings suggest that patient navigators may be well-positioned to address gaps in services around psychosocial support and care coordination while also encouraging self-management in older adults with complex care needs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".