Living with dementia in hospital wards: a comparative study of staff perceptions of practice and observed patient experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the experiences, attitudes and knowledge of staff working in two Maltese hospital wards and the observed experiences of people with dementia living there. To examine the impact of recommendations made in October 2011 for improving the psychosocial and physical environments of the wards 1 year later. BACKGROUND: There is an increasing policy recognition of the need for a better trained and educated dementia care workforce and of ensuring that the environmental design of care settings meets the needs of people with dementia. DESIGN AND METHODS: At both time points, three established and validated data-collection methods evaluated (i) staff/patient interaction and patient experience, (ii) the extent to which the wards met dementia friendly principles and (iii) staff views about their work environment and their perceptions about their practice. Sixteen (five male and 11 female) patients with dementia and 69 staff in the two wards participated in the study. RESULTS: We noted small but important changes; however, the physical and psychosocial environments of the wards did not always align to current recommendations for dementia care, with staff perceptions of care delivery not always reflecting the observed experiences of care of those living with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing staff questionnaire data with observational methods offered a unique opportunity to understand multiple perspectives in a complex hospital setting. Incorporating these perspectives into staff and management feedback allowed for recommendations that recognised both patient-centred values and staff constraints.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".