The Rhetoric and Reality of Choice and Autonomy When Older People Are Discharged from Community Hospital at the End‐of‐Life in England: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an increasing acknowledgement in the UK of the importance of recognising frailty as a condition that leaves older people vulnerable to dramatic, sudden changes in health triggered by seemingly small events. In policy, the approach to managing frailty is often an emphasis on staying well with limited consideration to frailty as an end‐of‐life phase. Meanwhile, discharge from hospital continues to be complex. Overstretched acute hospitals are juxtaposed with community and social services that struggle to keep up with the demand of those being discharged and the labelling of older people as “bed blockers” at the centre of delayed discharges. This paper reports a study underpinned by constructivist grounded theory methodology, with the aim of exploring the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 57 participants including patients, their informal carer(s), community hospital staff, community health professionals, and care home managers. The core category of “the drive to discharge conveyor belt” was derived from data analysis. A significant finding of this study was that of the carer, their burden, and their intrinsic role in facilitating discharge, filling in gaps in services, coordinating services, and enabling the patient to stay at home, with little consideration of their choices or autonomy. The “drive to discharge” impacts older people, their informal carers, and health professional. This study suggests how they may be supported, through an ethical lens.
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 | 0.030 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".