MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393943547 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2024.2335662

Impact of the End PJ Paralysis interventions on patient health outcomes at the participating hospitals in Alberta, Canada

2024· article· en· W4393943547 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gurech James Wai, Zihang Lu, Sudeep S. Gill, Isabel Henderson, Mohammad Auais

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeconditioningPsychological interventionEmergency medicineAdverse effectPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Multiple hospitals in Alberta implemented the End PJ Paralysis – a multicomponent inpatient ambulation initiative aimed at preventing the adverse physical and psychological effects patients experience due to low mobility during admission. To inform a scale-up strategy, this study assessed the impact of the initiative based on select process and outcome measures.Materials and methods Clinical and administrative data were obtained from the hospital Discharge Abstract Database, Research Electronic Data Capture (Redcaps), and Reporting and Learning System for Patient Safety. The variables explored were length of stay, inpatient falls, discharge disposition, pressure injury, patient ambulation, and patient dressed rates. We then used the Interrupted Time Series design for impact analysis.Results The analysis included discharge abstracts for 32,884 patients and the results showed significant improvements in outcomes at the participating units. The length of stay and inpatient falls were reduced immediately by 1.8 days (B2=-1.80, p = 0.044, 95% CI [-3.54, −0.05]), and 2.2 events (B2=-2.22, p = 005, 95% CI [-3.75, −0.69]). The percentage of patients discharged home increased overtime (B2=.39, p=.006, 95% CI [.11, .66]). Mobilization and dressed rates also improved.Conclusions The findings imply the interventions safely mitigated the risk of immobility-induced complications, including deconditioning and hospital-acquired disability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207