Perceptions of Frailty in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An early palliative approach to care may best suit the care needs of older persons with frailty living in long-term care (LTC). The study objective was to evaluate the barriers and facilitators to care for frailty in the LTC setting. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were completed with physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, allied health-care providers, care partners, and residents with care experience in LTC. Framework analysis methods that leveraged behaviour change theories were used to analyze the interview data and produce practice-oriented findings. Results: Twenty-eight interviews were completed. Seven themes were identified: resident characteristics related to frailty; frailty detection and diagnosis; frailty treatment and care planning; frailty and prognosis conversations; palliative and end-of-life care; communication amongst LTC collaborators; and the LTC environment. All codes were labelled as barriers or facilitators and assigned to a primary domain within the Theoretical Domains Framework. Conclusions: The lack of clinical recognition of frailty in the LTC setting was a key barrier to clinical pathway implementation. There is a need for frailty to be linked to prognosis and care decisions, for frailty to be directly addressed through individualized treatments, and for an early palliative approach to care to be accessible to residents. Identifying barriers to care for frailty is a critical step toward clinical care pathway implementation which may improve care and outcomes for residents of LTC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".