MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126863960 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0000000000000547

Adopting the Fall Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety (TIPS) Program to Engage Older Adults in Fall Prevention in a Nursing Home

2021· article· en· W3126863960 on OpenAlexaffabout
Huey‐Ming Tzeng, Udoka Okpalauwaekwe, Srijesa Khasnabish, Brenda Andreas, Patricia C. Dykes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFall preventionMedicinePsychological interventionNursingIntervention (counseling)Poison controlOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPatient safetySuicide preventionExcellenceMedical emergencyGerontologyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related hospitalizations and deaths among older adults globally. LOCAL PROBLEM: About 24% of Canadian nursing home residents fall annually. This quality improvement project evaluated the impact of the Fall Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety (TIPS) program on preventing falls and fall-related injuries among older adult nursing home residents in a subacute care unit in Canada. METHODS: We used the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) 2.0 guidelines for reporting. The intervention site is a 15-bed subacute care unit within a government-funded nursing home. INTERVENTION: The Fall TIPS program was adapted to a nursing home setting to prevent falls. It provides fall prevention clinical decision support at the bedside. RESULTS: The rates of falls and injuries decreased after implementing the Fall TIPS intervention. CONCLUSION: Engaging nursing home older adult residents in fall prevention is crucial in translating evidence-based fall prevention care into clinical practice.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.683

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.397 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207