MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7117564516 · doi:10.13135/2532-7925/13075

The integrated care pathway for individuals with severe disability resulting from brain injury: a descriptive retrospective study from the project for the Accreditation Canada Distinction program.

2025· article· en· W7117564516 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Davide Grillo, Stefano Bargellesi, Silvia Zangarini, Elisa Sandrin, Liliana Tudor, Federica Lanzi, Giovanni Carretta, Carlo Longato, Massimo Zuin, Giorgia De Zottis (PI)

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcquired brain injuryRetrospective cohort studyRehabilitationGlasgow Coma ScaleCohortAccreditationDescriptive statisticsCohort studyMultidisciplinary approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION A severe Acquired Brain Injury (sABI) is formally defined as an acquired brain injury that results in a comatose state, characterized by an acute-phase Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of ≤ 8 persisting for more than 24 hours. Despite advances in complex case management, patients with severe Acquired Brain Injury (sABI) and extremely severe disability, often experience inappropriate hospitalization. This persistence in acute care or rehabilitation wards significantly contributes to the phenomenon of delayed discharge. The project launched by the ULSS 3 - Venezia health authority, initiated for participation in the “Accreditation Canada - Stroke Distinction” and “Accreditation Canada - Trauma Distinction” programs, aims to facilitate the community reintegration phase for these individuals. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study utilized a retrospective descriptive design to assess the characteristics of a cohort of individuals with sABI referred to the ULSS 3 facility. The analysis specifically focused on management indicators (e.g., hospital length of stay and delayed discharge metrics), clinical status, and multidimensional features. Eligibility for inclusion in the extra-hospital reintegration project was established through consensus during a dedicated multidisciplinary committee meeting. RESULTS A cohort of seven individuals (four males, three females) was included in this analysis. The cohort presented with a mean age of 64.14 ± 17.7 (37-86) years and a mean acute-phase GCS score of 6.4 ± 1.91 in the initial 24 hours. Upon review by the joint committee, all patients exhibited a high level of assistance required for Activities of Daily Living (ADL), mobility, and nursing care. The rehabilitation enrollment of these subjects occurred, on average, after 23.4 days. The mean length of stay (LOS) was 180.5 ± 65.1 (91-282) days. Furthermore, the mean duration between the formal approval for discharge and the actual patient discharge was 39.4 ± 32.2 (7-84) days. DISCUSSION The included patient population demonstrated a very high level of functional complexity and nursing care dependency. The institutional project is based on the "intermediate care" model, in which service delivery is organized to ensure integration and continuity of patient care. This project may assist not only in managing the phenomenon of "delayed discharge" but also in the social reintegration of the patient. CONCLUSIONS Patients with sABI, characterized by severe disability and high dependency on care, may remain in acute care units. Projects aimed at facilitating the extra-hospital reintegration phase may mitigate the phenomenon of delayed discharge and inappropriate hospitalization. However, prospective studies with adequate statistical power are necessary to confirm this hypothesis.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury Research→French-language works237,207→