MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995044568 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afz164.100

100 Knowledge of Nurses about the Morse Falls Scale

2019· article· en· W2995044568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roslawati Ramli, Weng Keong Yau

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKuala lumpurScale (ratio)Quarter (Canadian coin)NursingFamily medicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Falls in the hospital is common. Morse Fall Scale was introduced in 2013 to Hospital Kula Lumpur as a tool for risk assessment in order that prevention strategies could be instituted in accordance to the falls risk. However, the rate of falls was on the rise in the last 5 years despite the use of the tool. The concern was that there is a lack of understanding in the use of the tool or that the scoring was not performed correctly by the nurses. Method A validated structured questionnaire regarding the knowledge of Morse Fall Scale was distributed to the registered nurse of the Medical Department Hospital Kuala Lumpur. Results 209 responses to the questionnaire were collected. The average correct answers were 7 points. Almost a quarter of the nurses had less than 5 correct answers. 50% of this group of nurses has less than 5 years of working experience; most of them only had a diploma and were working in the active medical wards. 17% had full scores, in which 92 % of them had more than 5 years’ experience and had higher nursing qualifications. Overall, the nurses with longer working experience scored 1 point higher than those with a diploma. However, there is no difference in the average score with regards to their place of work, either in clinic or ward. The highest scoring (97.6%) question was the question regarding the purpose of Morse Falls Scale. The least correctly answered (41.6 %) was the question regarding the number of categories in the Morse Falls Scale. Conclusion The nurses with more experience understood the use of the scoring and usage of the Morse Falls Scale better. Generally, with an average score of only 7 out of 10, may reflect an inadequacy in the understanding in falls prevention. References 1. SG Lim, SW Yam. The level of knowledge and competency in the use of the Morse Fall Scale as an assessment tool in the prevention of patient falls, IeJSME, 2016, 10(3): 14-23 2. Cruza S, AL Carvalho P, Barbosa BL. Morse fall scale user’s manual: Quality in supervision and in nursing practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 171: 334–9. 3. Enein NAE, Ghany ASAE, Zaghloul AA. Knowledge and performance among nurses before and after a training programme on patient falls. Open Journal of Nursing 2012; 2: 358–64.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207