Unlicensed assistive personnel’s involvement in delivering care to persons with or at risk of delirium: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the nature and extent of the literature regarding unlicensed assistive personnel's involvement in delivering care to persons with or at risk of delirium. INTRODUCTION: Initiatives that promote the involvement of unlicensed assistive personnel in providing additional supervision and care to persons with or at risk of delirium have been developed. Because no standardized approach guides unlicensed assistive personnel's involvement with persons with or at risk of delirium, and because inconsistent training and expectations may pose a threat to the safety and quality of care, it is essential to clarify the role of unlicensed assistive personnel in caring for persons with or at risk of delirium. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider articles published in peer-reviewed journals, dissertations, theses, book chapters, and conference papers. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods studies that report on the development, implementation, or evaluation of the role of unlicensed assistive personnel in contexts of delirium will be included. We will consider editorials and opinion papers only if they report on the development, implementation, or evaluation of the role of unlicensed assistive personnel. METHODS: Records published in French or English will be identified via CINAHL, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, Embase, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two independent reviewers will select studies and extract data using a piloted form. Data will be synthesized narratively, using descriptive statistics and a tabular format. A consultation phase will include approximately 24 unlicensed assistive personnel and registered nurses who will be invited to comment on the review findings. KEY DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE IN OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK: https://osf.io/kg9yx/.
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 | 0.126 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.013 |
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".