Identifying modifiable factors to improve quality for older adults in hospital: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional ways of viewing hospitalisation do not always recognise how elements within the hospital environment contribute to disability. Four theoretical dimensions of older adult-hospital environment fit have been proposed in previous research on elder-friendly hospitals: social climate, physical design, care systems and processes, policies and procedures; however, modifiable factors for each dimension are not yet identified. DESIGN: Exploratory iterative design guided by Arksey and O'Malley (2005, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8, 19) scoping review methodology. METHOD: We undertook a scoping review of primary research related to hospitalised community-dwelling older adults. Keys search terms and criteria were used to identify relevant articles with modifiable factors extracted from articles meeting study criteria. RESULTS: A total of 66 studies were included and evaluated for modifiable factor mapping. We were able to map all 66 studies to the four dimensions. The majority of included studies described care systems and processes, with little relating to social climate, physical design and policies and procedures. Thirty-nine potentially modifiable factors were identified and mapped to the theoretical dimensions according to four overarching themes: models of care; assessment of potential geriatric issues; targeting care to a specific clinical issue and supporting transitions home themes. CONCLUSION: The dimensions of older adult-hospital fit help us to organise key features of an elder-friendly hospital and identify potentially modifiable factors. Although it makes intuitive sense to cluster and organise according to the dimensions to help with understanding, this tells us little about the synergy of interactions and hierarchical relationships. Our results highlight the importance of competent gerontological nursing in care for hospitalised older adults and the need for further understanding of the older adult and family as a unit of care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Registered nurses have a leadership role to ensure safe quality care for older people in hospital. This leadership role can be framed in interventions that focus on fixing the fit between what older people need and what the hospital environment provides. Modifiable factors for improvement are within the scope and competency of the registered nurse.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".