Pilot of Patient Engagement in Continence Care on Geriatric Rehabilitation Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to pilot a process of engaging geriatric rehabilitation patients in the assessment and management of their continence concerns. DESIGN: A descriptive study was conducted. METHODS: The study has four phases: (1) staff education on continence with a pre-post knowledge quiz, (2) design of patient engagement process by a working group, (3) a 6-week pilot of a patient symptom questionnaire and process of engaging patients with audits of disciplinary admission histories and documentation, and (4) patient and staff feedback surveys. RESULTS: Patients in geriatric rehabilitation identify a range of bladder and bowel symptoms. However, there was little documented evidence from the interprofessional team that corresponded to patients' reported symptoms. CONCLUSION: Further research into symptoms bothersome to patients and engagement of both patients and the interprofessional team in addressing these in the rehabilitation setting is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE TO REHABILITATION NURSING: Patients admitted to geriatric rehabilitation have a range of bladder and bowel symptoms which need to be 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".