MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1578034961 · doi:10.6000/2292-2598.2015.03.02.10

A Discussion of the Treatment of People with an Intellectual Disability Across Healthcare and the Modernization of Learning Disability Nursing

2015· article· en· W1578034961 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pamela Inglis, Hazel Powell, Angela Ridley, Sheila McQueen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and Treatment · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntellectual disabilityModernization theoryLearning disabilityHealth carePsychologyNursingMedicinePsychiatryEconomic growthEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Aims: A discussion of the treatment of people with an intellectual disability across healthcare and the modernisation of learning disability nursing. Background: Health inequalities are at the forefront of the collective mind of healthcare professionals and politicians, this paper explores why people with an intellectual disability have more health issues, die earlier and sometimes receive poor care, leading to unnecessary suffering and importantly, how this may change. Learning disability nursing has long been viewed as different and less valued, probably due to dual stigmatisation, or lack of understanding of specialist knowledge and skills required. This essential field of nursing is becoming a rare resource in our battle against health inequalities, yet internationally it is becoming recognised as crucial. Design: Discussion Paper. Data Sources: Literature and policy (1971 – 2012). Implications for Nursing: All nurses need to recognise their role in meeting the health care needs of people with an intellectual disability. Health care managers and commissioners should value the unique contribution of learning disability nurse in addressing health inequalities. Conclusion: Learning disabled people, their carers and professionals view the role of the learning disability nurse as central for effectively identifying and meeting health needs, reducing inequalities and barriers, supporting decisions around capacity, consent, best interests and advising and educating professionals. Recommendations for commissioning, nursing and services are made. Summary Statement: Why is this discussion paper needed? People with an intellectual disability have shorter life-spans and receive poor healthcare because of the barriers to good health developed in societies constructed by and for people without a disability. Internationally, the need for learning disability nurses, with their specific knowledge and skills, is being recognised in the battle against early and unnecessary deaths because of discrimination and health inequalities. Learning disability nurses and ‘Strengthening the Commitment’ lead on improving healthcare for learning disabled people and this paper raises the profile of this important health issue. What are the key findings? This discussion paper explores how most of the poor health experienced by people with an intellectual disability is about discriminating healthcare provision and crucially, not because the person has a disability. People with an intellectual disability have greater health needs than others and despite this, nonspecific health professionals often have scant understanding of their disability and health needs. Learning disability nursing as a vital resource has in recent years seen posts reducing in the NHS, with actual and commissioned numbers of registered learning disability nurses dropping. How should the findings be used to influence policy/practice/education/research? People with an intellectual disability and nonspecific staff often feel they are inadequately educated and lack appropriate skills for quality healthcare provision for learning disabled people; this has to change. Sir Johnathon Michael (2008) recommendation 1 advises that all health professionals be competent in supporting learning disabled people in a non-discriminatory way - universities and employers urgently need to adhere to this recommendation. Professionals, learning disabled people and carers state learning disability nurses are vital to acquiring human rights - increased international commissioning for learning disability nurses to enable quality healthcare, education and advice to professionals is pressing.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,036
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,036
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,190

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0360,032
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0240,038
Communication savante0,0110,021
Science ouverte0,0050,014
Intégrité de la recherche0,0350,032
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,397
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Intellectual Disability - Diagnosis and TreatmentMême sujetGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesTravaux en français237 207