The Patient Perspective of an Inpatient Addiction Medicine Unit Implemented in an Urban Northern Acute Care Hospital in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An Addiction Medicine Unit (AMU) represents a promising approach to enhancing hospital care for individuals who use substances, but there is limited research to understand patients' perspectives on AMUs. Therefore, the study objectives involved exploring patients' experiences with the AMU. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 patients to gather their perspectives about the AMU. The AMU offers specialized inpatient addiction support, integrating medical and psychosocial interventions while facilitating connections to community supports to stabilize patients and manage addiction-related issues using a harm reduction philosophy. Results: Factors identified by patients that lead to positive experiences with the AMU included: efficient access to high-quality acute medical care, specialized addiction care, and additional support for non-medical needs. Patients emphasized the benefits of having peer support workers on staff, the overall positive interactions with staff, and how different these experiences were from their hospital admissions outside of the AMU. Factors identified by patients that should be considered in an AMU included: the ease of access to substances, negative interactions with other patients, and self-stigma/internalized discrimination. Also, the patient perspective reflected varied views on harm reduction. Patients' perception of the impact of an AMU overall reflected that the AMU is an effective way to deliver comprehensive treatment, to address the needs of PWUS, both medical and substance-use-related issues. They identified that the unit's intentional harm reduction philosophy facilitated access to care and positive patient-staff interactions, emphasizing the unit's progress in reducing fear and judgment and rebuilding trust in the healthcare system. Conclusion: The introduction of a new AMU in a Northern urban acute care hospital in Ontario has yielded positive patient experiences. The AMU model shows potential to re-establish trust between patients and providers, but ongoing efforts are needed to address underlying stigma to be more effective.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".