Observations of the experiences of people with dementia on general hospital wards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on research that aimed to explore how people with dementia are cared for in general hospital wards in the United Kingdom (UK). The paper details findings from one phase of data collection, ward based observations. The observations elucidated the ways in which persons with dementia express and portray their ‘selves’, the interpretations made by nurses about the patients with dementia they cared for and the constructions of roles and care environments. The findings demonstrate how a variety of influences affect the way a person with dementia experiences a hospital admission. Nurses' positive or negative interpretations of a person with dementia can lead to the ‘constraint’ or ‘realisation’ of a person's portrayal of self. In an ageing global society, improving the care of older people is a priority. The findings illuminate the central importance of promoting two-way relationships in which the actions of people with dementia are recognised as portraying individuality and identity. The study highlights a need for practice development to enhance nursing care for medical and surgical patients with a coincidental diagnosis of dementia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".