Healthcare professionals’ perceptions of P.I.E.C.E.S. education in supporting care delivery for older adults with responsive behaviours of dementia in acute care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In acute care settings persons with dementia often use responsive behaviours such as yelling and hitting as a meaningful mode of communication. Staff dementia care education programs such as P.I.E.C.E.S. may help to address these gaps in care. P.I.E.C.E.S. is a holistic clinical assessment framework that focuses on Physical, Intellectual, and Emotional health, Capabilities of an individual, and the living Environment of a person and the Social being.Aims: The aim of this interpretive descriptive study was to explore the perceptions of healthcare professionals of P.I.E.C.E.S. and recommendations to enhance its uptake.Methods: A total of 15 healthcare professionals from acute medical settings in a hospital in Ontario participated in face-to-face, semi-structured interviews. Experiential thematic and secondary data analyses were performed.Findings: P.I.E.C.E.S. had many positive perceived impacts such as promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. However, participants reported that it was challenging to sustain P.I.E.C.E.S. in practice which led to a tapering off of it approximately one year post-education. A barrier to applying P.I.E.C.E.S. was limited time.Conclusions: Findings indicate the need for educational reinforcements and sustainability strategies for dementia care programs in acute care settings. Organizations should implement regular interdisciplinary meetings to provide opportunities for staff to apply P.I.E.C.E.S.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it