Restraint Practices in Incapable Wandering Patients During COVID-19: Ethics and Best Practice Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients who wander as one of their psychological and behavioural symptoms of dementia are often unable to follow or recall Infection Prevention and Control precautions, putting them at risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19. Physical and chemical restraints have been used to limit the risk of transmission to wandering patients and their care providers, but restraints are not the standard of care for wandering behaviour in non-pandemic scenarios. Although provincial policies on restraint use are available, their guidance may not provide the context-dependent information necessary for individual patient decisions. To address this knowledge gap, we reviewed the medical, ethical, and legal considerations through an interdisciplinary approach including nurses, physicians, ethicists, hospital leadership, risk management, and legal counsel. We present an ethical framework that front-line health-care workers can use to create a balanced patient-centred care plan for incapable wandering patients who are at risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19.
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 | 0.052 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".