I. Downsizing Psychiatric Hospitals: Needs for Care and Services of Current and Discharged Long-Stay Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the psychiatric deinstitutionalization movement in its fourth decade, questions are being raised concerning its relevance for long-stay inpatients with severe disabilities and the risk that those discharged into the community may be abandoned. METHODS: A random sample taken in 1989 of long-stay inpatients at Louis-H Lafontaine Hospital made it possible to examine 96 pairs of patients. Each pair included 1 patient discharged between 1989 and 1998 and 1 patient hospitalized. Pairs were matched for sex, age, length of stay, and level of psychiatric care in 1989. Patients and staff were interviewed using standardized questionnaires, and case notes were reviewed to assess symptoms, daily living skills, residential status, quality of residential setting, and clinical and social problems and needs. RESULTS: The investigation revealed that discharged patients moved to highly supervised settings, which included professionally supervised group homes, supervised hostels, and foster families. About 20% went to nursing homes owing to loss of autonomy from physical disorders. Only 4 discharged patients were lost to follow-up, of whom 2 were probable vagrants. Both those discharged and those remaining as inpatients presented with major clinical problems and daily living skill deficits. The care needs of discharged patients were generally met, and placement in the community was considered appropriate. Of those who had remained hospitalized, over one-half could be moved to supervised settings immediately, or after 1 to 2 years' preparation in a discharge unit, while 13% could be moved to nursing homes. Over 25% required intensive, individualized rehabilitation treatment targeting engagement, psychotic symptoms, withdrawal, and dangerous and socially embarrassing behaviours. CONCLUSION: Deinstitutionalization in the largest Canadian psychiatric hospital did not lead to patient abandonment in the community.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".