MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926451887 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.4307885.v2

Fractured Care: A Window Into Emergency Transitions in Care for LTC Residents With Complex Health Needs

2020· other· en· W6926451887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentTracking (education)Health careEmergency medical servicesWindow of opportunityTransfer (computing)Electronic health record

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: For long-term care (LTC) residents, transfers to emergency departments (EDs) can be associated with poor health outcomes. We aimed to describe characteristics of residents transferred, factors related to decisions during transfer, care received in emergency medical services (EMS), ED settings, outcomes on return to LTC, and times of transfer segments along the transition. Method: We prospectively followed 637 transitions to an ED in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, over a 12-month period. Data were captured through an electronic Transition Tracking Tool and interviews with health care professionals. Results: Common events triggering transfer were falls (26.8%), sudden change in condition (23.5%), and shortness of breath (19.8%). Discrepancies existed between reason for transfer, EMS reported chief complaint, and ED diagnosis. Many transfers resulted in resident return directly to LTC (42.7%). Discussion: Avoidable transfers may put residents at risk of receiving inappropriate care. Standardized communication strategies to highlight changes in resident condition are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataSame topicAquatic Ecosystems and Phytoplankton DynamicsFrench-language works237,207