International comparison of quality indicators in United States, Icelandic and Canadian nursing facilities
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
AIM: To discuss the results of a comparison using minimum data set (MDS)-based quality indicators (QIs) for residents in nursing facilities in three countries (Iceland; Ontario, Canada; and Missouri, United States) together with implications regarding nursing practices and resident outcomes in these countries. METHOD: Data were extracted from databases in each country for four consecutive quarterly periods during 1997 and 1998. All facilities investigated had the required consecutive quarterly data. Analytical techniques were matched to measure resident outcomes using the same MDS-based QIs in the three countries. RESULTS: Similarities among the three countries included the use of nine or more multiple medications, weight loss, urinary tract infection, dehydration, and behavioural symptoms that affect others. Differences among the three countries included bowel and bladder incontinence, indwelling catheter use, fecal impaction, tube feeding use, development of pressure ulcers, bedridden residents, physical restraint use, depression without receiving antidepressant therapy, residents with depression, use of anti-anxiety or hypnotic drugs, use of anti-psychotic drugs in the absence of psychotic and related conditions, residents spending little or no time in activities, and falls. CONCLUSIONS: Comparisons highlighted differences in clinical practices among countries, which may account for differences in resident outcomes. Learning from each other's best practices can improve the quality of care for older people in nursing homes in many countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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