Facilitators and Barriers to Nurses Screening for Frailty in Acute Care in a Provincial Health-Care System: a Survey Study Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Older adults living with frailty represent the largest population of hospitalized patients in Canada, but they do not always receive the quality of care needed. Nurses are well-positioned to screen for frailty, but current frailty screening practices are poorly understood. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted over a six-week period with nurses from Alberta, Canada working in acute care with older adults. Demographics were descriptively reported. Frailty screening methods were quantified on 5-point frequency scales, reported descriptively and compared by practice area using linear regression. The top-five mean scores from a 43-item, 6-point Likert-type questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were compared by practice area. Results: > .05) differences for using clinical impression, or preference of screening method. The top facilitator was the disbelief that frailty screening negatively impacts relationships with older adults. The top barrier was belief that conducting frailty screening was routine. Nursing practice area influenced frailty screening beliefs. Conclusions: There is an opportunity to implement frailty screening tools into the nursing practice of Alberta' nurses working in acute care. Frailty screening tools that become routine have greater likelihood for utilization. Nursing practice areas may have unique situations that require tailored approached to tool implementation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".