A qualitative investigation of injurious falls in long-term care: perspectives of staff members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although falls often result in serious injury among seniors residing in long-term care (LTC), there is a paucity of research about LTC staff perceptions about falls. Our purpose was to elicit opinions of LTC staff about falls and fall prevention given 'least restraint' policies. We also aimed to identify obstacles for optimal falls prevention. METHOD: Data were collected from administrators and a wide variety clinical staff (N = 98; 7 LTC facilities) using 11 focus groups and 28 interviews. Questions were asked about clinical practices related to falls. We employed thematic analysis to ascertain primary and secondary themes within the data. RESULTS: Participants viewed falls as a major challenge. They expressed concerns about their ability to control falls and manage consequences. Participants were conflicted about the role of restraints in falls management. Although they acknowledged beneficial effects of least restraint in terms of resident independence and increased activity, they also noted that in some instances, restraints may prevent falls, especially when individuals with dementia are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Participants were highly attentive to issues surrounding falls. However, many were unaware of clinically important findings from relevant research and misperceived fall-related (restraint) policies. Physical therapists have a role to play in education initiatives targeting these areas.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".