Patient experience of heart failure care transition from hospital to home : an interpretive description
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Heart failure is the second most common reason for hospital admission in Canada. Research has shown that failure to plan a safe, smooth transition home results in emergency department visits and hospital readmissions. Despite the existence of national heart failure care transition best practice guidelines, the evidence is largely missing the patient perspective. The purpose of this study was to understand the patient and caregiver’s experience of the transition from hospital to home. Methods: Interpretive description methodology guided this qualitative study. Participants were recruited from two hospitals within the central interior of British Columbia between January and December, 2017. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with patients (n=8) and their caregivers (n=3) at their homes, or by telephone, within two weeks of discharge. Findings: Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify four themes related to the hospital stay experience: focusing on the person, not the task; feeling included or excluded from decisions; some information is better than none; and variation in discharge readiness compared to the health care team’s discharge plan. Once at home, two themes emerged: still recovering at home and self-care. Implications: This study highlights the importance of assessing the patient and family’s ideal level of participation in decision-making and discharge readiness in relation to the health care team throughout the hospital stay. Patients prefer heart failure information to be tailored to their needs, and offered early in the hospital stay. Educators should apply a person-centered lens when practicing skills with students. Guidelines and care design should be completed with patients as partners to ensure their perspectives are incorporated. Lastly, researchers should partner with patients and decision-makers to conduct studies with larger samples of heart failure patient and caregiver groups, in multiple centers across Canada to further validate these findings, focusing on priorities set by patients and caregivers.
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 | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".