Older Adults Living AtRisk: Ethical dilemmas, Risk, Assessment and Interventions to Facilitate Autonomy and Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OLDER ADULTS LIVING AT RISK: ETHICAL DILEMMAS, RISK, ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTIONS TO FACILITATE AUTONOMY AND SAFETY By: Rhiannon Berke, RN, BN rhiannon.berke@albertahealthservices.ca Faculty of Nursing, Athabasca University, 1 University Drive Athabasca, AB, T9S 3A3, Canada ABSTRACT Older adults (seniors) living at risk are usually identified as adults aged 60 years and older, who are living at home despite having economic, social or physical barriers that affect their overall independence, well-being and quality of life. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview for nurses and related caregivers of the ethical dilemmas, risk assessment and interventions to facilitate autonomy and safety for this population. Supporting seniors that choose to live at risk is a complex process and represents an ethical dilemma between respecting individual autonomy versus protecting them from harm. Seniors who decide to live at risk are at times questioned, and may require competency and physical assessments to gauge whether there is a clear understanding and appreciation of the consequences of their choices. Interventions and approaches to promote ageing in place safely are described, including the value of the Managed Risk Agreements tool, the role of technology and supportive services. The positive outcomes of the current interventions and approaches discussed reinforce the need for further research in this area of risk management. Keywords: ageing in place, older adults (seniors), living at risk management, competency
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".