Quality Assurance and Prevention of COVID-19 Before Admission in Geriatric Rehabilitation Unit in Long-Term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This quality assurance study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic to describe the profile of patients aged 65 years and older admitted to a transition unit in a long-term care (LTC) facility and to evaluate the impact of admission modalities, compliance with screening and hand hygiene practices, risk of COVID-19, and time to access a geriatric rehabilitation unit (GRU). Methods: A prospective study was conducted using administrative and medical records from three Montreal public LTC facilities offering a rehabilitation program for 312 patients admitted between May 2020 and February 2021. The results are reported for the entire sample and compared according to the mode of admission. Results: The incidence of COVID-19 during the transition unit stay was estimated to be 11 cases or 3.5% in 14 days. Assessment of screening compliance showed deficiencies for 41.3% of patients, and the frequency of hand hygiene audits was not strictly adhered to. More COVID-19 cases were recorded in patients admitted to the transition unit by bed availability than in the cohort mode. The time to access a rehabilitation unit was 7.2 days or 23.5% shorter for patients admitted by bed availability. Conclusions: The study, conducted from a continuous practice improvement perspective, showed that the implementation of a transition unit in the LTC facilities helped control the transmission of COVID-19, but also revealed flaws in screening and hand hygiene practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".