Transfer from long-term care to acute care and risk of new permanent cognitive or physical disability among long-term care residents in Canada: protocol for a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Long-term care (LTC) residents are frequently transferred to acute care hospitals. Transfer decisions should align with residents' wishes and goals. Decision to transfer to hospital, when not aligned with the resident's wishes, can result in transfers that are harmful to residents, leaving residents in a state of disability that could be considered worse than death. We aim to examine whether transfer to an acute care hospital is associated with subsequent new onset of severe permanent physical and cognitive disability in LTC residents. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a retrospective cohort study of all LTC residents ≥65 admitted to LTC homes between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We will use health administrative data from the Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS), National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) and Registered Persons Databases (RPDB), which include data on emergency department visits, hospitalisations, demographic information and mortality. All participants will be followed until 31 March 2023. The exposure is any transfer from LTC to an emergency department or acute care hospital. The outcomes are (1) subsequent new permanent physical disability, (2) subsequent new permanent cognitive disability and (3) all-cause mortality. Due to the time-varying nature of the exposure and confounders, we will use an extended cause-specific Cox regression model to explore this relationship. We will fit marginal structural models (MSMs) to account for the known shortcomings of traditional regression modelling, such as collider bias. Lastly, we will use a preference-based instrumental variable approach to address unmeasured confounders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained through Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Committee (REB#M16-23-030). Study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be disseminated in conferences and seminars. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/JCDEY).
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 | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".