Health‐care staff perspectives in optimising delirium prevention using data‐driven interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify factors influencing delirium prevention (risk identification and screening), from the perspective of health service staff, in order to ascertain the characteristics and implementation strategies critical for the clinical adoption of data-driven optimisations for delirium prevention. This pre-implementation study used the Monash Learning Health System (LHS) paradigm to visualise iterative integrated assimilation of delirium prevention in routine care. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted in a large metropolitan public health network in Australia. Following consultation with organisational leaders, a purposive sample of clinical/non-clinical participants with expertise in delirium care delivery was recruited. Interviews were inductively analysed using a framework approach. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains underpinned interview questions and guided thematic mapping and analysis of responses. RESULTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 participants (clinical [n = 14] and non-clinical [n = 4]). Key themes included challenges in consistently integrating delirium risk identification and screening processes into clinical workflows, infrastructure-related obstacles hindering the digitisation of decision support, and the need to engage caregivers and staff in designing optimisations to enable appropriate and timely delirium prevention. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated insights into key factors influencing delirium prevention, focusing on the development and implementation of optimisations such as automated delirium risk prediction. Improving hospital information technology infrastructure, supporting workforce digital literacy and ensuring accountability in all professional groups are crucial for implementing automated delirium risk prediction models in clinical practice. Future research should examine the feasibility and efficacy of optimised delirium prevention interventions in pragmatic clinical trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".