WTP4.12 Pathway to recovery: enhancing the safe discharge process for patients with traumatic brain injury at tertiary care trauma centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the discharge process for patients with traumatic brain injuries (TBI) by allied health professionals (AHPs). Once medically appropriate, all TBI patients should be reviewed by a head injury nurse, and neuro-occupational therapist (NeOT) to complete a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) prior to discharge. Methods Case notes of the TBI patients admitted between June and September 2024 were reviewed and data focusing on their length of stay and timing of AHPs assessments was collected. Results Of the 78 patients studied in this cohort, 59 patients were admitted with isolated TBIs, and 19 patients were admitted with polytrauma plus TBI. The average length of stay of this patient cohort was 7.13 (0-30) days. Only 11 patients (11%) were reviewed by all three AHPs, and 9 patients experienced delayed discharge, mainly due to the need for rehabilitation, hospital transport issues, and NeOT review delays. Of the 59 isolated TBI patients, only 36 (61 %) were seen by a NeOT. Seventeen patients 22 % were not seen by any AHP; 5 were made palliative, the remaining 12 patients were discharged within three days of admission without being seen by a NeOT. Conclusion Despite protocols in place for referrals to AHPs, there is no standard pathway for referrals of patients with TBI. Therefore, significant proportions of patients were discharged without AHPs review. This lack of organized referral pathways puts patients at risk, as critical risk assessments and home functionality evaluations are not consistently completed before discharge.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".