Delirium Reduction by Analgesia Management in Hip Fracture surgery (DRAM‐HF): Exploration of perceived facilitators and barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In tandem with the implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol which was successful in reducing delirium after hip fracture surgery (DRAM-HF), we sought to investigate enablers and barriers to same. METHODS: Single-centre, prospective, before-and-after questionnaire targeted at health-care professionals involved in DRAM-HF. We assessed respondent-reported enablers and barriers to the multidisciplinary protocol, using 0-100 agreement scales and free-text responses. RESULTS: A total of 134 preintervention and 124 postintervention responses were collated (out of 200, response rates 67% and 62%, respectively). Preintervention support for DRAM-HF was 100% (n = 130) and postintervention 95.9% (n = 116). Study design was well received with a mean score of 76.7 (SD 19.7) for being easy to understand. Support for additional computer alert systems was also high (mean 73.6, SD 23.9). Free-text responses emphasised the need for integration of ward pharmacists into medication optimisation (n = 31) and upskilling nurse practitioners (n = 23). CONCLUSION: Whilst generally supported, DRAM-HF implementation may be streamlined by optimising electronic delivery, offering targeted education and expanding roles.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".