Review of psychotropic medication in Tasmanian residential aged care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine psychotropic medication review practices in residential aged care facilities. METHODS: Psychotropic medicine use data were collected from residents from 40 residential aged care facilities throughout Tasmania. As an indication of review practices, the measure was repeated at 33 of the original facilities a year later. RESULTS: A total of 2389 residents' medication records were examined in 2006. Regular doses of antipsychotics and benzodiazepines were taken by 42% and 21% of residents, respectively. Medication data were available for 1307 of the residents in 2007. Over 60% were taking the same antipsychotic or benzodiazepine agent, at the same dose in 2007, as they were in 2006. Dosage reduction or cessation occurred in less than a quarter of the residents. CONCLUSION: The utilisation of psychotropic medication is high in Tasmanian residential aged care facilities. Attempts to reduce psychotropic doses happen infrequently. Further research is required to establish the barriers to appropriate psychotropic medication review in this setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".