A Survey of Nurses' Perspectives on Delirium Screening in Older Adult Medical Inpatients With Limited English Proficiency
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) is commonly used to detect delirium but its utility in patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) is not well-established. In the current study, internal medicine nurses at an acute care hospital in Canada were surveyed on the use of the CAM in older adults with LEP. Nurses' perspectives were explored with a focus on barriers to administration. Fifty participants were enrolled (response rate = 47.6%). Twenty-eight (56%) participants stated they could not confidently and accurately assess delirium in patients with LEP. Twenty-nine (58%) participants believed the CAM is not an effective delirium screening tool in the LEP population. Barriers to screening included: challenges with interpretation services, dependence on family members, and fear that the assessment itself may worsen confusion. Our study is the first to describe specific barriers to administering the CAM in patients with LEP. Strategies are required to address these barriers and optimize delirium screening for patients with LEP. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 47 (4), 29–34.]
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it