Continuity of care during long-term care transitions: a scoping review of the Canadian literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who maintain longitudinal provider-patient relationships experience better overall health outcomes. However, most older adults in Canada lose contact with their family physician when they enter long-term care (LTC) as new providers assume responsibility for their care. There is relatively little known about the contextual factors, processes, knowledge, and health professions education antecedents that promote the benefits of relational, management, and informational care continuity during LTC transitions. METHODS: Using a rigorous scoping review method, we searched multiple databases systematically to identify and scrutinize peer-reviewed articles pertaining to continuity of care during LTC transitions in Canada. Guided by Transitions Theory, two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. A descriptive analytical method was employed to categorize content into themes. RESULTS: Eight articles met the inclusion criteria. Our findings confirm that instances of relational continuity are very few during LTC transitions, suggesting barriers associated with practice models and the influence of physician characteristics. Notably, the review also highlights that the involvement of interprofessional team members, patients, and their partners-in-care in transition planning could improve informational and management care continuity for patients as they move into LTC. CONCLUSION: Patient and family involvement, provider training, and practice and funding arrangements are all critical to improving relational, management, and informational care continuity during LTC transition. We recommend more studies to understand processes and policies to optimize informational continuity as a panacea for the often-disrupted relational continuity.
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 | 0.023 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".