Development of Tissue Integrity indicators to advance the quality of spinal cord injury rehabilitation: SCI-High Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To establish structure, process and outcome indicators to evaluate tissue integrity in Canadians with spinal cord injury or disease (SCI/D) in the first 18 months following inpatient rehabilitation admission.Method: A Working Group comprised of Canadian subject matter experts in the Domain of Tissue Integrity was formed to define the construct of tissue integrity. A literature review was conducted and a Driver diagram produced to identify factors that influence tissue integrity in individuals with SCI/D. Facilitated meetings were conducted to identify and achieve consensus on structure, process and outcome indicators. Rapid cycle testing was used to pilot test proposed indicators for face validity and feasibility within a quality improvement context.Results: The structure indicators are the proportion of patients with SCI/D who have access to a mirror for skin checks and the proportion of patients who have access to patient education on tissue integrity; the process indicator is the proportion of patients who completed daily head-to-toe skin checks; the intermediary outcome indicator is pressure injury (PI) incidence during inpatient rehabilitation; and the final outcome indicator is the proportion of individuals with intact skin at 18 months following rehabilitation admission.Conclusion: The set of indicators established for the Domain of Tissue Integrity are specifically focused on aspects of care that can impact the maintenance of tissue integrity and the prevention of PI and align with current practice guidelines. The implementation and evaluation of these indicators nationally have the potential to improve care for Canadians with SCI/D.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".