Effectiveness of a Smart Urinary Continence Care Assessment System for Nursing Home Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of use of an electronic urinary continence assessment system versus usual care on construction of care plans, resource use, and continence care for nursing home (NH) residents. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods study comprising a prospective, parallel arm-controlled phase, and concurrent qualitative component. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The study setting was Alberta, a province in Western Canada. Residents requiring a continence assessment or reassessment in an NH with 2 units assigned to intervention (I) and 2 units to usual care (UC). One hundred one residents (I: n = 49; UC: n = 52) participated; 89 (I: n = 43; UC: n = 46) completed the study. The mean age of the UC group was 88.5 (SD = 6.9) years, whereas the mean age of the intervention group was 85.6 (SD = 7.5) years. METHODS: Quantitative data on assessment, resource use, resident quality of life, and continence care outcomes were collected at weeks 0, 2, and 8; plan adherence was assessed at week 16. Qualitative data were collected via interviews. RESULTS: Analysis revealed a significant change in the proportion of residents achieving a reduction in 24-hour pad absorbency (50.6% vs 39.1%, P = .034) at week 8. There were significant differences in between-group changes (total absorbency of pads used in 24 hours and total cost of night pads used). Both groups reported improved health-related quality of life. Analysis of qualitative data revealed 3 themes: resource use; quality of continence care; and system utility and limitations. CONCLUSIONS: A technological solution offering a standardized system of continence assessment provided benefit in terms of quality of care for residents and use of continence containment products; utility was validated by staff.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".