Incidence of Pressure Injury Among Older Adults Transitioning from Long-term Care to the ED
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify sociodemographic, health condition, and organizational/process factors associated with pressure injury (PI) incidence during older adults' emergency transitions from long-term care (LTC) to the ED. METHODS: Emergency transitions were tracked for older adults within included LTC facilities to participating EDs in two urban centers located in provinces in Canada. Binary logistic regression was used to examine the influence of sociodemographic, service use, and client health and function factors on the incidence of PIs during transitions from LTC facilities to EDs. RESULTS: Having a mobility issue (odds ratio [OR], 4.318; 95% CI, 1.344-13.870), transitioning from a publicly owned versus a nonprofit volunteer LTC facility (OR, 4.886; 95% CI, 1.157-20.634), and time from ED arrival to return to LTC being 7 to 9 days (OR, 41.327; 95% CI, 2.691-634.574) or greater than 9 days (OR, 77.639; 95% CI, 5.727-1,052.485) significantly increased the odds of experiencing a new skin injury upon return to LTC. A higher number of reported reasons for emergency transition (up to 4) significantly decreased the odds of a new PI upon return to LTC (OR, 0.315; 95% CI, 0.113-0.880). CONCLUSIONS: The study findings can be used to identify LTC residents at increased risk for developing new skin injuries during an emergency transition, namely, those with mobility impairment, those requiring inpatient care for 6 or more days, and those transitioning from publicly owned LTC facilities. Evaluating the uptake and effectiveness of single-pronged and multipronged interventions such as visual cues for patient turning through online monitoring, consistent risk assessments, and improved nutrition in all care settings are vital next steps in preventing skin injuries in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".