MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403689695 · doi:10.3390/s24216803

Implementing AI-Driven Bed Sensors: Perspectives from Interdisciplinary Teams in Geriatric Care

2024· article· en· W4403689695 on OpenAlexafffund
Cromwell G. Acosta, Yayan Ye, Karen Lok Yi Wong, Yong Zhao, Joanna Lawrence, Michelle Towell, Heather D’Oyley, Marion Mackay-Dunn, Bryan Chow, Lillian Hung

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
KeywordsGeriatric careEngineeringComputer sciencePsychologyNursingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep is a crucial aspect of geriatric assessment for hospitalized older adults, and implementing AI-driven technology for sleep monitoring can significantly enhance the rehabilitation process. Sleepsense, an AI-driven sleep-tracking device, provides real-time data and insights, enabling healthcare professionals to tailor interventions and improve sleep quality. This study explores the perspectives of an interdisciplinary hospital team on implementing Sleepsense in geriatric hospital care. Using the interpretive description approach, we conducted focus groups with physicians, nurses, care aides, and an activity worker. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed our thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation. Among 27 healthcare staff, predominantly female (88.89%) and Asian (74.1%) and mostly aged 30-50 years, themes emerged that Sleepsense is perceived as a timesaving and data-driven tool that enhances patient monitoring and assessment. However, barriers such as resistance to change and concerns about trusting the device for patient comfort and safety were noted, while facilitators included training and staff engagement. The CFIR framework proved useful for analyzing implementation barriers and facilitators, suggesting future research should prioritize effective strategies for interdisciplinary team support to enhance innovation adoption and patient outcomes in rehabilitation settings.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207