Night-time continence care in Australian residential aged care facilities: findings from a grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Continence care commonly disrupts sleep in residential aged care facilities, however, little is known about what staff do when providing continence care, and the factors that inform their practice. AIMS: To describe nurses' and personal careworkers' beliefs and experiences of providing continence care at night in residential aged care facilities. METHODS/DESIGN: Eighteen nurses and personal careworkers were interviewed about continence care, and 24 hours of observations were conducted at night in two facilities. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Most residents were checked overnight. This practice was underpinned by staffs' concern that residents were intractably incontinent and at risk of pressure injuries. Staff believed pads protected and dignified residents. Decisions were also influenced by beliefs about limited staff-to-resident ratios. CONCLUSION: Night-time continence care should be audited to ensure decisions are based on residents' preferences, skin health, sleep/wake status, ability to move in bed, and the frequency, severity and type of residents' actual incontinence.
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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".