National audit of continence care: adherence to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidance in older versus younger adults with faecal incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: previous UK National Audits of Continence Care showed low rates of assessment and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI) in older people. OBJECTIVE: the 2009 audit assessed adherence to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on management of FI and compared care in older versus younger patients. METHODS: fifteen older (65+) and 15 younger (18-65) patients with FI were to be audited in hospital (inpatient or outpatient), primary care (PC) and care home sites. RESULTS: data were submitted for n = 2,930 cases from 133 hospitals, n = 1,729 from 97 PC surgeries and n = 693 from 63 care homes. Bowel history was not documented in 41% older versus 24% younger patients in hospitals and 27 versus 19% in PC (both P < 0.001). In older people, there was no documented focused examination in one-third in hospitals, one-half in PC and three-quarters in care homes. Overall, <50% had documented treatment for an identified bowel-related cause of FI. FI was frequently attributed to co-morbidity. Few patients received copies of their treatment plan. Quality-of-life impact was poorly documented particularly in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: this national audit shows deficits in documented assessment, diagnosis and treatment for adults with FI despite availability of clinical guidance. Overall care is significantly poorer for older people. Clinicians, including geriatricians, need to lead on improving care in older people including comprehensive assessment where needed. Improvement in some indicators in older people with successive audits suggests that ongoing national audit with linked information resources can be useful as both monitor and agent for change.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".