Pilot Study Compares Scores of the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 (MDS 2.0) Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale with the Braden Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment for Patients in Complex Continuing Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk (Braden Scale) and the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set Version 2.0 (MDS 2.0) Pressure Ulcer Risk Scale (PURS) provide a comparable assessment of the level of risk of developing a pressure ulcer at admission in complex continuing care. SETTING: Saint-Vincent Hospital, Bruyère Continuing Care, a 336-bed complex continuing care facility that provides restorative, complex, specialized, and supportive care to adults in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted from February 2012 to April 2012 on 51 patient charts that were chosen based on the completion of an admission Braden Scale assessment within a maximum of 4 weeks from admission and completed admission MDS 2.0. RESULTS: The Braden Scale categorized 63% of patients at risk when using scores between 15 and 23, compared with 33% for the MDS 2.0 PURS scores of 0-2 (low and very low risk). Both scales were comparable in identifying patients in the lower risk categories when data was reviewed using a cutoff point of 18 for the Braden. At the high risk end of the spectrum, the MDS 2.0 PURS categorized more patients, 45%, as high or very high risk, compared with 21% for using the Braden Scale. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study may provide some evidence that the MDS 2.0 PURS may be an alternative risk assessment tool option that utilizes mandatory collected data, reduces workload duplication, and would generate a Resident Assessment Protocol, when indicated, in complex continuing care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".