Abstract 3500: Implementing Best Practice Recommendations to Address Urinary Incontinence after Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Urinary incontinence following stroke is known to have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation progress, resulting in a slower rate of recovery and less functional independence at discharge. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (2010) and the American Stroke Association Clinical Practice Guidelines (2005) recommend that a bladder training program, including timed and prompted toileting on a consistent schedule, be implemented in patients who are incontinent of urine following a stroke. Canadian Best Practice Recommendations for Stroke Care (2010) further recommend intermittent catheterization as an intervention to address urinary incontinence. The aim of the present study was to assess the extent to which the Canadian guidelines are being incorporated into clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for consecutive stroke admissions to a neuro-rehabilitation unit in Ontario, Canada over a period of six months. Charts were reviewed for the occurrence of urinary incontinence, whether intermittent catheterization was performed, any mention of bladder training and the documentation of a bladder training protocol. Results: One hundred and four charts were reviewed, after excluding four patients that could not be assessed for urinary incontinence due to other medical conditions. Thirty-three patients were reported to be incontinent of urine during their stay in the rehabilitation unit. Intermittent catheterization was performed for 11 patients (33.3%) with urinary incontinence. Bladder training was indicated as a therapy that was used in the rehabilitation of 16 patients (48.5%). However, a formal bladder training protocol followed by the nursing staff was only documented in 5 patients (15.2%). Conclusions: The rehabilitation of urinary incontinence following stroke is an important issue, with a substantial number of patients failing to receive the recommended therapy. There is a need to develop strategies to promote the application of best-practice recommendations to address urinary incontinence.
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".