Development of a practice guideline for optimal symptom relief for patients with pneumonia and dementia in nursing homes using a Delphi study
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
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a practice guideline for a structured and consensus-based approach to relieve symptoms of pneumonia in patients with dementia in nursing homes. METHODS: A five-round Delphi study involving a panel consisting of 24 experts was conducted. An initial version of the practice guideline was developed with leading representatives of Dutch University Medical Centers with a department for elderly care medicine, based on existing guidelines for palliative care. The experts evaluated the initial version, after which we identified topics that reflected the main divergences. The experts rated their agreement with statements that addressed the main divergences on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was determined according to pre-defined criteria. The practice guideline was then revised according to the final decisions made by the project group and the representatives. RESULTS: The response rate for the expert panel was 67%. Main divergences included the applicability of guidelines for palliative care to patients with dementia and pneumonia in long-term care and the appropriateness of specific pharmacological treatment of dyspnea and coughing. Moderate consensus was reached for 80% of the statements. Major revisions included adding pharmacological treatment for coughing and recommending opioid rotation in the case of opioid-induced delirium. Two areas of divergent opinion remained: the usefulness of oxygen administration and treatment of rattling breath. The project group made the final decision in these areas. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a mostly consensus-based practice guideline for patients with dementia and pneumonia and mapped controversial issues for future investigation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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