Alternate Level of Care Patients in Canada: a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There has been increasing concern over the growing number of Alternate Level of Care (ALC) patients in Canada who must wait in hospitals for more appropriate settings to meet their needs. ALC patients may have to stay in hospitals for days or months due to a lack of available long-term care capacity, home care services, or other discharge routes. Method: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) method to review 35 papers on the topic of ALC patients and delayed discharge in Canada from different perspectives, including (1) the shared characteristics of ALC patients in Canada; and (2) their impact on the Canadian health-care system, medical staff, and family members. Furthermore, from the reviewed works, (3) we also investigate the factors that impact the length of the hospital stays. Results: We highlighted how the ALC problem is increasing healthcare costs, disrupting services, increasing waiting times, and compromising access to valuable resources. We found evidence suggesting that this far-reaching crisis affects the patients, their families, and the medical personnel. We discovered several logistical issues (such as access to long-term care) affecting the patient's hospital length of stay. Conclusions: Our research contributes to understanding this intricate problem, and helps policymakers take steps to tackle this challenge to ensure timely and appropriate care for all patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".