Nurse-assisted personal hygiene to older adults 65+ in home care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Assisting frail older adults in home care settings with personal hygiene is a daily nursing role. Both Nightingale and Henderson had in their approach to basic nursing focus on assisting patients in their need of nurse assisted bath. Since 1994 focus on using a new technology to patient in dependency of nurse-assisted bath was developed. A clinical study involving older adults in need of nurse-assisted bath was carried out in a public homecare setting. This study aimed to study and compare older adults’ attitudes, experiences and evaluation of using traditional bath with soap and water versus prepacked products to their personal hygiene.Methods: A number of 20 men and women participated in our research with focus on their daily need of nurse-assisted bath. The older adults had given a written consent. All participants were informed about the study verbally and in writing and they all agreed to participate and signed written informed consent forms. All data were handled confidentially, and the participants’ anonymity was assured. A clinical study was carried out. During three weeks, the older adults had nurse- assisted bath with soap and water two days followed by two days using prepacked was-cloths. The same nurse assisted the older adults all days, and they were interviewed before the research. Relevant data as age, gender, bath facilities at home, walking ability, dependency on help from others, contact to family/friends were collected. In the research period the older adults’ self-reported experiences with the two types of baths were registered. The nurses observed the baths with focus on the older adults’ attitude, satisfaction and experiences.Results and conclusions: The patients preferred to have their own individual choice of daily bath type. Pre-packed wash-cloths were overall preferred by the nurses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".