Healthcare professionals’ perspectives on rehabilitating persons with cognitive impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite emerging evidence that persons with cognitive impairment (CI) (including dementia and/or delirium) can be rehabilitated post-hip fracture surgery, there still remains a paucity of research on best practice rehabilitation strategies that help healthcare providers effectively rehabilitate persons with CI. Therefore, this qualitative study explores healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspectives who have been successfully providing rehabilitation for people with CI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixteen HCPs with a specialty in rehabilitating persons with CI from one inpatient rehabilitation facility with various professional backgrounds were purposively sampled using a maximum diversity sampling strategy. Three focus group discussions were conducted to explore their experiences of providing rehabilitation to persons with CI. A hybrid inductive-deductive approach was used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: HCPs acknowledged that older adults with CI deserved the opportunity for inpatient rehabilitation and that good outcomes were achievable; however, their knowledge, skills, and attitudes required reframing. The analysis identified three essential components to rehabilitation: (1) staff education and support, (2) tailored rehabilitation approaches, and (3) care partner involvement and support. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Rehabilitation of persons with CI post-hip fracture surgery is achievable, and HCPs can learn to modify their practices to achieve positive patient outcomes. The attitudes of the healthcare team members had to be shifted to embrace the belief that persons with CI can be rehabilitated. However, it takes a steep learning curve, creativity, ingenuity, and tailored approaches to rehabilitate persons with CI successfully. This involves knowing the individual, maintaining routines, and learning the best ways to engage and motivate the person. As well, care partners' knowledge and understanding of the individual improved the chances of a successful rehabilitation stay and discharge. Essential to the success of rehabilitation of persons with CI includes a supportive management team to help create the processes to enable their staff to succeed.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".