MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606889841 · doi:10.1111/opn.12153

“Little things matter!” Exploring the perspectives of patients with dementia about the hospital environment

2017· article· en· W2606889841 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Older People Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDementiaAction (physics)NursingUnit (ring theory)Service (business)Action researchPsychologyMedicineDiseasePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recognising demographic changes and importance of the environment in influencing the care experience of patients with dementia, there is a need for developing the knowledge base to improve hospital environments. Involving patients in the development of the hospital environment can be a way to create more responsive services. To date, few studies have involved the direct voice of patients with dementia about their experiences of the hospital environment. DESIGN AND METHOD: Using an action research approach, we worked with patients with dementia and a team of interdisciplinary staff on a medical unit to improve dementia care. The insights provided by patients with dementia in the early phase shaped actions undertaken at the later stage to develop person-centred care within a medical ward. We used methods including go-along interviews, video recording and participant observation to enable rich data generation. AIM: This study explores the perspectives of patients with dementia about the hospital environment. RESULTS: The participants indicated that a supportive hospital environment would need to be a place of enabling independence, a place of safety, a place of supporting social interactions and a place of respect. CONCLUSIONS: Patient participants persuasively articulated the supportive and unsupportive elements in the environment that affected their well-being and care experiences. They provided useful insights and pointed out practical solutions for improvement. Action research offers patients not only opportunities to voice their opinion, but also possibilities to contribute to hospital service development. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This is the first study that demonstrates the possibility of using go-along interviews and videoing with patients with dementia staying in a hospital for environmental redesign. Researchers, hospital leaders and designers should further explore strategies to best support the involvement of patients with dementia in design and redesign of hospital environments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it