480 INFORMATION OVERKILL: IF THE WALLS ACROSS HOSPITALS WARDS COULD TALK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The walls across hospital wards are cluttered with posters, which, in some places, are peeling and staining with the years. Hospital management and well intention ward users dictate these displays, however their effectiveness in delivering essential information is rarely measured. We undertook a survey to establish: a) Whether posters are effective, b) What information ward users want, c) How they want information to be delivered. Methods 100 participants (68 staff and 32 patients’ relatives) were surveyed across three 28 bedded wards for older people. They had to recall as many posters as possible then identify useful posters from a current list. They were asked about unmet information needs, other media that they would utilise and alternative uses for ward walls. Interventions were made on one ward based on initial findings: 1. An ‘Information for Relatives’ board was created, 2. A mural was installed. 20 relatives were asked to complete an anonymous form reviewing the board. Results Only 23% of participants were able to recall at least 3 posters. 34% could not find a single useful topic among the current posters. The most popular unmet information needs, among many, were ‘the discharge pathway’, ‘delirium’ and ‘falls’. Most participants said they would engage with alternative information media, suggesting leaflets, email and websites. A quarter felt walls should be for artwork, not posters. The ‘Information for Relatives’ board was well received. In the second survey, new unmet information needs were uncovered and, despite the new mural, 45% called for more paintings still. Conclusions Most people do not read the information on the walls on hospital wards. An appetite exists for alternative media. Paintings were earnestly called for at every point; a comforting ward environment should be part of the holistic care we aim to offer, especially for older patients.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".