MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181872669 · doi:10.1177/00048674211025700

Psychiatric care implications of the Aged Care Royal Commission: Putting the cart before the horse

2021· editorial· en· W3181872669 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey CL Looi, Steve Kisely, Tarun Bastiampillai, Stephen Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Health careCommissionMedicineNeglectCommonwealthMental healthBlueprintNursingPublic relationsPsychiatryPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

That another Royal Commission (RC) or Board of Inquiry has eventuated is sadly unremarkable, given the breadth and depth of dysfunction in Australia’s aged care system. The key is whether there will be any effective action, as the accretion of problems through decades of manifest neglect will be very difficult to remediate. Substantial reform of the Australia’s Aged Care system has been proposed and is welcomed (Commonwealth of Australia, 2021). There is a great deal that could be achieved with concerted effort. However, in common with the recent Productivity Commission Report on Mental Health, there are concerns about the recommendations directly affecting clinical healthcare (Looi et al., 2021). Therefore, we focus on the specific recommendations that are of most direct relevance to the provision of psychiatric care for older Australians, discussing the proposals and their ramifications.\nThe metaphor of putting the cart before the horse is apt. The substantive redesign of the aged care system, especially in relation to improved and coordinated clinical governance, provision of funding, infrastructure and, crucially, workforce capacity, is essential before the implementation of recommendations directly impacting clinical care.\nAustralia clearly needs better availability and improved quality of mental health care in the aged care sector. However, clinically relevant recommendations appear to lack a practical understanding of the real-world context of provision of psychiatric care in Australia’s aged care system and systemic issues, especially in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) (Looi and Macfarlane, 2014). The key concerns relate to the practicalities of implementation of wide-ranging multi-level inter-governmental funding and policy in relation to specialist psychiatric care; the lack of consideration of the workforce planning, training, retention and recruitment necessary to provide specialist psychiatric care; and potential unexpected consequences of the restrictions on pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment that are proposed in advance of essentially addressing the two former matters. In particular, there is burgeoning evidence for the efficacy of nonpharmacological psychosocial and nursing strategies, and these should be the basis of mental health care in RACFs. However, the staffing levels in RACFs and mental health skills of most carers (nursing assistants, enrolled nurses, personal carers) may be inadequate to implement such strategies. (Looi and Macfarlane, 2014)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.288 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian & New Zealand Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207