Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Frail Elder Pain Management Program (FEPMP) implemented for patients who had hip fracture repairs at a community hospital in 1995. Based on standards of geriatric and pain management practice, the FEPMP included education sessions, preprinted analgesic orders, pain flow sheets, written resources, and clinical support. A Logic Model reflected the program's conceptualization. DESIGN: Preexperimental pretest and posttest design. SAMPLE: A random sample of 50 charts of patients aged 75 and older who had hip fracture repairs were audited from each of two periods: the preimplementation period (1994-95) and the postimplementation period (1997-98). METHODS: A chart audit tool was developed, tested, and used. Data were analyzed using descriptive, parametric and nonparametric statistics. FINDINGS: Surgeons' prescriptions and nurses' pain management practices improved significantly (p = .0001). Pain assessment modestly improved. Patient outcomes also improved. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND EDUCATION: A programmatic approach to pain management is effective for improving practice and outcomes for frail elders.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".