Carer Perspectives About the Acceptability and Usability of the <scp>TRANSITION</scp> Tool to Support Preparation for Older Adult Care Transitions: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transitional care of older adults can be highly stressful for informal carers (carers) particularly when they are not involved in preparation and planning with health practitioners. This study aimed to ascertain carer perspectives about the potential acceptability and usability of a tool entitled the TRANSITION tool to support preparation and planning for the transition of an older adult from hospital to home. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken between March 2020 and October 2021. A focus group was conducted in July 2022 to seek additional information and support data saturation. A total of 23 participants took part. Data were thematically analysed. FINDINGS: Participants explained their perspectives about the tool in four themes: (1) the TRANSITION tool has value, but health practitioners ask the questions; (2) the TRANSITION tool would be useful and acceptable, but not for all carers; (3) interacting with health practitioners is a barrier to using the tool and to communication; and (4) recognising us as part of the care team. CONCLUSIONS: While the tool was found to have potential value and utility, it would only be expected to support carers when they are valued and respected by health practitioners. Leadership is required in healthcare organisations to support genuine care for older adults and their carers, and to enable health practitioners to have time for transitional care communication. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings from the study suggest that the TRANSITION tool could support carers by prompting them about important areas of care to include in communication with health practitioners during discharge preparation.
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 | 0.040 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".