MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888065279 · doi:10.1093/geronb/55.1.s33

Deficiency citations for physical restraint use in nursing homes

2000· article· en· W2888065279 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas G. Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journals of Gerontology Series B · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsCitationLogistic regressionMedicineCertificationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The average percentage of residents restrained in nursing homes is approximately 20%. Facilities that do not meet Health Care Financing Administration standards for restraint use may be issued a deficiency citation. This article investigates which structure and process factors of nursing homes are associated with a deficiency citation for restraint use. METHODS: Nationally representative data from the 1997 On-line Survey Certification of Automated Records are used, first, to provide descriptive analyses, and second, for logistic regression analyses of structure and process factors associated with a deficiency citation for restraint use. RESULTS: A total of 2,321 facilities were found to have at least one restraint deficiency citation, and 14,703 had none. After controlling for seven other key variables, five structural factors and six process factors are significant. The structural factors--larger bed size, for-profit ownership, and hospital based--were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of a deficiency citation for restraint use; whereas higher numbers of full-time equivalent specialists per resident and nurse aide training were significantly associated with a lower likelihood. The process factors--suctioning therapy, pain management, and bladder training--were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of a deficiency citation for restraint use; whereas intravenous therapy, higher use of catheters, and physical restraints were significantly associated with a higher likelihood of a deficiency citation. DISCUSSION: This analysis establishes linkages between structures and processes and the outcome of a deficiency citation for restraint use. The structural results may have some utility for regulators. They could be used to develop a specific program to target facilities most commonly found to have inappropriate restraint use. The process results may have some utility for providers who could use the information to target residents for review of inappropriate restraint use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journals of Gerontology Series BSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207