Quality indicators for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia in acute care: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This scoping review presents an overview of quality indicators (QIs) available for the monitoring of best practices in the assessment and management of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in hospitalized older adults. METHOD: The literature study followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A conventional database search (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was conducted in January 2024, and a grey literature search in February 2024. Articles published from 2013 onward were included if they reported potential QIs for monitoring best practices with regards to BPSD, or similar manifestations in the context of delirium, in hospitalized older adults. RESULTS: The review included 25 publications, reporting a total of 88 potential QIs: 23 structural indicators, 38 process indicators, and 27 outcome indicators. The QIs retrieved cover elements pertaining to the screening and reporting, assessment, management, impacts, hospitalization outcomes, and resources invested for BPSD in acute care. CONCLUSION: While this study generated an exhaustive list of QIs for the monitoring of best practices in the assessment and management of BPSD in hospitalized older adults, further research is needed to optimally operationalize these indicators before they can be successfully implemented in acute care settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework platform on December 22, 2023. (https://osf.io/r4hwz/).
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 | 0.058 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".