Environmental audit scoring evaluation: evolution of an evidence-based environmental assessment tool to support person-centered care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Long-term care settings are at the center of strongly debated approaches to policies that shape the delivery of care and operational practices. There is advocacy for transformational change within these settings to support a person-centered approach to care delivery, but it is difficult and multifaceted involving everything from changing the level of staffing and care models to developing appropriate metrics to assess an individual's quality of life. The physical environment is a key component for accomplishing the organizational and operational goals related to person-centered care, but providers and their design teams need the appropriate tools to guide evidence-based decision-making. The Environmental Audit Scoring Evaluation (EASE) is a tool that helps lend structure to the process of developing the environment for our senior population-especially those living with dementia. This perspective article will discuss how EASE aims to align the design process to more fully support the myriad environmental elements that have a demonstrable impact on the individual, and the associated quality of life they experience. The article will also explore how EASE differs from previous planning strategies that did not prioritize residents' psychological wellbeing in conforming to current person-centered philosophies.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".