MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are physical intervention techniques likely to cause pain or injury when applied to manage the severely aggressive older adult? A survey of physiotherapist’s expert views in the UK

2011· article· en· W1605116208 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brendon Stubbs, Lee Hollins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlzheimer Society
KeywordsMedicineIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Physical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To establish whether a professional consensus can be established amongst musculoskeletal physiotherapists or whether they believe certain physical intervention techniques would cause pain or injury if applied to an older adult. BACKGROUND: Physiotherapist involvement in the context of a multidisciplinary team framework to develop adaptive techniques as required for complex physical presentations has resulted in lower injury rates than in working-age adults. Physiotherapists are experts in anatomy and human movement and are ideally placed to contribute to the safe application of physical intervention in older adults. DESIGN: A survey design was used. METHOD: A questionnaire was developed and tested to ascertain the physiotherapist's opinions of the likelihood of each technique causing the patient pain and/or injury. The lead author distributed 41 questionnaires to physiotherapists in two busy hospitals in the UK. RESULTS: Thirty-four (83%) of physiotherapists returned the completed questionnaires. The physiotherapists had particular concerns about the use of wrist flexion and kneeling on the older adult in prone causing pain and/or injury. Some other techniques that we have advocated in our earlier research were approved by many of the respondents, e.g. supporting the forearm with both hands proximal to the wrist joint. None of the physiotherapists had attended a physical intervention course or applied it in the clinical setting, thus enabling them to analyse the techniques purely from a biomechanical movement perspective. Implications for nursing practice are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: It is anticipated that this research will stimulate nurses and course providers to develop patient group-specific physical intervention techniques and thus reduce the risk of causing them pain and/or injury. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study reaffirms the heightened risks associated with applying restraint techniques to older adults. An issue that needs to be addressed is whether the duty of care which is explicit and implicit within the relationship between nurse and patient is to be fully discharged. It also reinforces prior research that has called for patient-specific physical intervention techniques and highlights some commonly used techniques that may have a deleterious effect on aggressive older adults. It also identifies the professional support that physiotherapists can offer to teams implementing physical intervention techniques within the context of clinical practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical NursingSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207