Healthcare Professionals’ Perspective on Implementing a Detector of Behavioural Disturbances in Long-Term Care Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of Canadians with dementia is expected to rise to 674,000 in the years to come. Finding ways to monitor behavioural disturbance in patients with dementia (PwDs) is crucial. PwDs can unintentionally behave in ways that are harmful to them and the people around them, such as other residents or care providers. Current practice does not involve technology to monitor PwD behaviours. Events are reported randomly by nonstaff members or when a staff member notices the absence of a PwD from a scheduled event. This study aims to explore the potential of implementing a novel detector of behavioural disturbances (DBD) in long-term care homes by mapping the perceptions of healthcare professionals and family members about this technology. Qualitative information was gathered from a focus group involving eight healthcare professionals working in a tertiary care facility and a partner of a resident admitted in the same facility. Thematic analysis resulted in three themes: (A) the ability of the DBD to detect relevant dementia-related behavioural disturbances that are typical of PwD; (B) the characteristics of the DBD and clinical needs and preferences; (C) the integration of the DBD into daily routines. The results tend to confirm the adequacy of the DBD to the day-to-day needs for the detection of behavioural disturbances and hazardous behaviours. The DBD was considered to be useful and easy to use in the tertiary care facility examined in this study. The participants intend to use the DBD in the future, which means that it has a high degree of acceptance.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".