Real-time location systems technology in the care of older adults with cognitive impairment living in residential care: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There has been growing interest in using real-time location systems (RTLS) in residential care settings. This technology has clinical applications for locating residents within a care unit and as a nurse call system, and can also be used to gather information about movement, location, and activity over time. RTLS thus provides health data to track markers of health and wellbeing and augment healthcare decisions. To date, no reviews have examined the potential use of RTLS data in caring for older adults with cognitive impairment living in a residential care setting. Objective: This scoping review aims to explore the use of data from real-time locating systems (RTLS) technology to inform clinical measures and augment healthcare decision-making in the care of older adults with cognitive impairment who live in residential care settings. Methods: Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (Ovid) and IEEE Xplore databases were searched for published English-language articles that reported the results of studies that investigated RTLS technologies in persons aged 50 years or older with cognitive impairment who were living in a residential care setting. Included studies were summarized, compared and synthesized according to the study outcomes. Results: A total of 27 studies were included. RTLS data were used to assess activity levels, characterization of wandering, cognition, social interaction, and to monitor a resident's health and wellbeing. These RTLS-based measures were not consistently validated against clinical measurements or clinically important outcomes, and no studies have examined their effectiveness or impact on decision-making. Conclusion: This scoping review describes how data from RTLS technology has been used to support clinical care of older adults with dementia. Research efforts have progressed from using the data to track activity levels to, most recently, using the data to inform clinical decision-making and as a predictor of delirium. Future studies are needed to validate RTLS-based health indices and examine how these indices can be used to inform decision-making.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".