Pressure ulcers: are they are a safeguarding issue in care and nursing homes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of the Care Act (Department of Health [DH], 2014) and adult legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, 2009) has resulted in closer scrutiny of care provision and outcomes for those living in residential and nursing homes. Issues are being raised concerning safeguarding and the incidence of pressure ulcers, and whether the two are inextricably linked. A literature review was undertaken searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, BNI and CINAHL, using the key words ‘pressure ulcers’, ‘risk’, ‘nursing’, ‘care home’ and ‘safeguarding’. No date limits were set. Five papers were retrieved and screened; all five were included in the review. Papers were retrieved from the USA and Australia, with none retrieved from the UK. In general, the findings did not show that the incidence of pressure ulcers is considered to be a safeguarding issue. A number of variables impacted pressure ulcer development, such as: staffing levels; ratio of qualified to non-qualified staff; and lack of education in recognising and prevention of pressure ulcers. Residential homes with a high incidence of pressure ulcers delivered poor quality care. As this was a literature review, it would be beneficial to undertake a systematic review of the literature in the future.
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 | 0.019 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".