Pain Management Decision Making Among Long-Term Care Physicians and Nurses
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
The purpose of this study is to explore attitudes and beliefs that affect decisions about prescribing and administering pain medications in older adults who live in long-term care (LTC), with a particular emphasis on those with cognitive impairment. At each of the four participating LTC facilities, data were gathered from three separate groups of health care professionals: physicians, registered nurses, and registered practical nurses. Based on grounded theory, a model was developed that highlighted critical decision points for nurses and physicians regarding pain management. The major themes that emerged from the data concerned pain assessment (lack of recognition of pain, uncertainty about the accuracy of pain assessment and diagnosis) and treatment (reluctance to use opioids, working to individualize pain treatments, issues relating to physician trust of the nurse on prescribing patterns). These findings may facilitate the development of innovative approaches to pain management in LTC settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it