Age-related Differences in Patient Outcomes and Factors Associated with Psychiatric Stays at the Dube Centre, Royal University Hospital, Saskatoon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the global exponential increase in life expectancy, the average 65-year-old Canadian can expect to live for an additional 21 years. This increase in the population of seniors will significantly impact the healthcare system and though mental health conditions occur throughout life course, seniors with mental illnesses also experience multimorbidity, functional decline and cognitive difficulties due to aging. The complex needs of these patients are best addressed by age-specific services. Unfortunately, psychiatric care for older adults is undifferentiated from that of younger patients and as a result, mental health services are better suited to cater to the needs of younger patients.\nWe sought to examine the differences in outcomes between older and younger patients in the psychiatric unit at Royal University Hospital (RUH), Saskatoon, as well as factors that influence length of stay and delayed discharge. We used administrative health data from the Saskatchewan Health Authority of in-patients’ admissions between 2012 and 2019. In this study, we show that despite the small population of older adult admissions at RUH, there are large and important differences in clinical outcomes between younger and older patient admissions. We also show that age is an important predictor of both length of stay and delayed discharges. Particularly, older patients are more likely to have longer lengths of stay and have thrice the odds of delayed discharges compared to their younger counterparts. The implications of these are many but the most important is that improving the outcomes of older patients by providing age-specific, specialized services such as geropsychiatric units can be useful and effective in reducing healthcare costs and expenditure for older patients, their caregivers, and the government.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".