Experiences of nurses with the care of patients with dementia in acute hospitals: A secondary analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To describe nurses' experiences in caring for people with dementia in acute hospital settings. BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that nurses' experience in caring for people with dementia in acute hospitals is characterised by frustration, overall job dissatisfaction and feelings of powerlessness and guilt. Despite a growing body of knowledge concerning the care of people with dementia in acute care settings, it remains unclear how nurses in acute hospitals provide care for people with dementia and what general conditions characterise the nursing care provided to these patients. DESIGN: A qualitative secondary analysis was conducted. METHODS: Data were collected using audio-recorded focus group discussions with nurses in Germany and Austria. Overall, 12 focus group discussions, which were part of two larger research projects in Germany and Austria, were expanded into a qualitative secondary analysis (a content analysis). RESULTS: The findings show that nurses face great uncertainty in caring for people with dementia in acute hospital settings and that each nurse reacts in different ways to address this uncertainty. The results also underline that, even for nurses who provide some form of person-centred care, the hospital environment imposes several contextual constraints. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals must minimise constraints to give every nurse the chance to perform person-centred care. Furthermore, it is important to sensitise nurses and give them sufficient training and education to enable them to care for people with dementia. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The results may contribute to a better understanding of the factors that support or constrain person-centred nursing care for people with dementia in acute hospitals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".