Linking Incidents in Long-Term Care Facilities to Worker Activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on a study examining staff activities being performed when incidents were reported to have occurred. The risk for injury among health care providers who engage in patient handling activities is widely acknowledged. For those working in long-term care, the risk of occupational injury is particularly high. Although injuries and injury prevention have been widely studied, the work has generally focused on incident rates and the impact of specific assistive devices on worker safety. The purpose of this study was to examine reported staff incidents in relation to staff activities. A multicenter cross-sectional exploratory study used retrospective data from reported staff incidents (2010, 2011, and 2012) and prospective data from 360 hours of staff observations in five long-term care facilities during 2013. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. A total of 898 staff incidents were reviewed from the facilities. Incidents were most likely to occur in resident rooms. Resident aides were more likely to be engaged in high-risk activities than other care providers. Times when staff incidents were reported to have occurred were not associated with periods of high staff-to-resident contact. Safe handling during low and moderate risk activities should be promoted. Education on what constitutes a reportable incident and strategies to ensure compliance with reporting policies and procedures may be needed to ensure accuracy and completeness of incident data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".