Barriers and facilitators to nursing delirium screening in older emergency patients: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: delirium is common in older emergency department (ED) patients, but vastly under-recognised, in part due to lack of standardised screening processes. Understanding local context and barriers to delirium screening are integral for successful implementation of a delirium screening protocol. OBJECTIVES: we sought to identify barriers and facilitators to delirium screening by nurses in older ED patients. METHODS: we conducted 15 semi-structured, face-to-face interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework with bedside nurses, nurse educators and managers at two academic EDs in 2017. Two research assistants independently coded transcripts. Relevant domains and themes were identified. RESULTS: a total of 717 utterances were coded into 14 domains. Three dominant themes emerged: (i) lack of clinical prioritisation because of competing demands, lack of time and heavy workload; (ii) discordance between perceived capabilities and knowledge and (iii) hospital culture. CONCLUSION: this qualitative study explored nursing barriers and facilitators to delirium screening in older ED patients. We found that delirium was recognised as an important clinical problem; however, it was not clinically prioritised; there was a false self-perception of knowledge and ability to recognise delirium and hospital culture was a strong influencer of behaviour. Successful adoption of a delirium screening protocol will only be realised if these issues are addressed.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".