Chasing the Mirage: a grounded theory of the clinical reasoning processes that Registered Nurses use to recognize delirium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to construct a grounded theory that explains the clinical reasoning processes that registered nurses use to recognize delirium in older adults in acute care hospitals. BACKGROUND: Delirium is under-recognized in acute hospital settings, this may stem from underdeveloped clinical reasoning processes. Little is known about registered nurses' (RNs) clinical reasoning processes in complex situations such as delirium recognition. DESIGN: A grounded theory approach was used to analyse interview data about the clinical reasoning processes of RNs in acute hospital settings. METHOD: Seventeen RNs were recruited. Concurrent data collection and comparative analysis and theoretical sampling were conducted in 2013-2014. FINDINGS: The core category to emerge from the data was 'chasing the mirage', which describes RNs' clinical reasoning processes to recognize delirium during their interaction with older adults. CONCLUSION: Understanding the reasoning that contributes to delirium under-recognition provides a strategy by which, this problem can be brought to the forefront of RNs' awareness and intervention. Delirium recognition will contribute to quality care for older adults.
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 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".