Interprofessional approach to fall prevention in hospital care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the perception and experience of health professionals regarding fall prevention practices in hospital inpatient units. METHOD: This is a qualitative exploratory and descriptive case study based on the Canadian framework of interprofessional competences. Data was collected from two focus groups, with different health professionals in each group, and thematic content analysis was used. RESULTS: Five categories were drawn up which showed intense convergence between the participants of the two focus groups, within the context of fall prevention practices: communication between professionals and patients/carers for fall prevention, interprofessional communication for fall prevention, clarification of roles for fall prevention, health education about risk and fall prevention and continuing education for fall prevention. CONCLUSION: Teamwork and collaborative practice are important for achieving good results in the prevention of falls in hospital care, but for this to happen, health professionals need to acquire the necessary competences for collaborative action.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it