Review of psychotropic medication in Tasmanian residential aged care facilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it