Diagnósticos e intervenções de enfermagem em idosos frágeis segundo o modelo conceitual de henderson
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Identificar os principais Diagnósticos de Enfermagem (DE) em idosos frágeis, propondo intervenções segundo o modelo conceitual de Henderson. Método: Trata-se de um estudo transversal, descritivo com abordagem quantitativa e qualitativa, realizado com 25 idosos de uma Instituição de Longa Permanência. Foram aplicados um questionário sociodemográfico e econômico, o Mini Exame do Estado Mental e a escala de fragilidade de Edmonton. Para elaboração dos enunciados de diagnósticos e intervenções de enfermagem, empregou-se a CIPE®, versão 2017. Os dados foram processados no SPSS, versão 20 e analisados através da estatística descritiva. Resultados: Os DE mais frequentes foram: Marcha prejudicada (94,4%), Risco de queda (94,4%), Memória prejudicada (94,4%), Falta de apetite (66,7%) e Humor deprimido (50%). Conclusão: A execução do estudo evidenciou que 72% dos participantes apresentaram fragilidade, onde foi possível identificar 8 DE dentre os idosos frágeis, possibilitando a formulação de intervenções frente í s necessidades de cuidados.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".