Factors in rehospitalisation for severe pressure ulcer care in spinal cord injury/disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Repeated hospital admissions (RHA) for ongoing pressure ulcer (PU) care remains a significant challenge in the clinical management of the spinal cord injury/disorders (SCI/D) population. The current study investigated the significance of risk factors for PU treatment and RHA. METHOD: A retrospective chart review of veterans admitted to the Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (LSCDVAMC) Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) unit for Category III or IV PUs was carried out. A random sample of 105 individuals with SCI/D, evaluated by the Wound Care Team (WCT) from 2006 to 2009 was assessed. Multiple PU development risk factors were extracted from the electronic health record system using standardised data collection forms and entered into the Spinal Cord Injury Pressure Ulcer Database (SCIPUD). Potential associations with RHA were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty variables were initially identified as potentially related to PU development. Descriptive statistics and statistically significant associations between risk factors and RHA were determined. Demographic factors showed no significant association with RHA. Duration of injury, power wheelchair use and sub-optimally managed spasticity (SMS) were significantly associated with higher RHA. Sub-optimally managed neurogenic bowel (SMNB) at admission was significantly associated with reduced RHA. CONCLUSION: Factors previously found to be predictive of initial PU development may not, in fact, be predictive of RHA. Some protective trends were observed, such as polypharmacy and marital status, but these did not reach statistical significance in this preliminary study of admission characteristics, warranting further research. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: There were no external sources of funding for this study. The authors have no conflicts of interests to declare.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".