Examining Fall Risk Assessment in Geriatric Rehabilitation Settings Using Translational Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify gaps in and to improve the falls prevention strategy (FPS) of an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) in Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: A modified version of the Stanford Biodesign Methodology was used. METHODS: Chart reviews, a focus group (n = 8), and semistructured interviews (n = 8) were conducted to evaluate the FPS. FINDINGS: Admission Functional Independence Measure score, age, and gender significantly correlated with risk for a fall. The tool used at this IRF was not effectively capturing patients who were at high risk for falls. All healthcare providers interviewed were knowledgeable of fall risks; however, a patient's fall risk status was rarely discussed as a team. CONCLUSIONS: The findings informed recommendations to improve the overall FPS at this IRF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Staff may require more coaching for implementing preventative measures/ensuring accountability and evaluating whether current strategies work. These insights can guide improvement initiatives at similar facilities elsewhere.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".