“How Can We Help You?” Older Adults’ and Care Partners’ Perspectives on Improving Care in Hospital: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hospitalized older adults have unique physical, emotional, and psychosocial needs. We sought to understand older patients' and care partners' experiences with multicomponent interventions that support age-friendly care and identify areas for improvement. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study using surveys and interviews to explore older adult patients' (65 years or older) and their care partners' experiences with hospital-delivered multicomponent initiatives. We recruited participants from the Geriatric Rehabilitation (GRU) and Musculoskeletal (MSK) Rehabilitation units in a Canadian academic hospital from October 2021 to April 2022 until we reached data saturation and no new themes emerged. Results: We recruited 18 participants, 10 patients (mean age 78 years, 80.0% female) and 8 care partners (mean age 61, 87.5% female). Surveys revealed overall positive experiences with multicomponent interventions. Interviews revealed five themes: 1) various forms of companionship for patients, 2) recreation and entertainment, 3) physical activity, 4) communication, and 5) pleasant physical environment. Having forms of companionship and proper communication with the care team were highlighted as areas of importance. Physical activity was highly valued, but participants expressed hesitation around safety of mobilizing without physiotherapists. Recreational activities helped distract from social isolation during a hospital stay and participants had diverse preferences for activities. Participants had strong memories of the physical environment, including the lack of natural light, institutionallike décor, and smells. Conclusion: Companionship, recreation and entertainment, physical activity, communication, and the physical environment were important to hospitalized patients and their care partners. Hospital administrators and policy makers should consider these when targeting areas to improve care for the aging population.
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 | 0.034 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".