Patient and family perceptions of a discharge bedside board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To explore patient and family perspectives of a discharge bedside board for supporting engagement in patient care and discharge planning to inform tool revision. Methods: = 5) across seven adult inpatient units at a tertiary acute care hospital in mid-western Canada. Thematic (interviews), content (board, organization procedure document), and framework-guided integrated (all data) analyses were performed. Results: Four themes were generated from interview data: understanding the board, included essential information to guide care, balancing information on the board, and maintaining a sense of connection. Despite application inconsistencies, documented standard procedures aligned with recommended board (re)orientation, timely patient-friendly content, attention to privacy, and patient-provider engagement strategies. Conclusion: Findings indicate the tool supported consultation and some involvement level engagement in patient care and discharge. Board information was usually valued, however, perceived procedural gaps in tool education, privacy, and the quality of tool-related communication offer opportunities to strengthen patients' and families' tool experience. Innovation: Novel application of a continuum engagement framework in the exploration of multiple data sources generated significant insights to guide tool revision.
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 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".