MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417058361 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afaf318.134

Assessment Of Hospital-acquired Incontinence In An Acute Hospital: A Re-audit

2025· article· en· W4417058361 on OpenAlexaff
Mikar Singh, Emily Buckley, Paul A Maguire, P. T. DOYLE, Tara Coughlan

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditUrinary incontinenceProspective cohort studyMedical recordDeliriumAcute careClinical audit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Urinary incontinence is a common problem in older adults. Hospital-acquired incontinence can result in increased morbidity and increased length of stay. The aim of this audit was to assess hospital-acquired incontinence in older adults in an acute hospital. Methods This audit and re-audit was guided by Royal College of Physicians (RCP) National Audit of Continence Care (NACC) standard. A prospective audit was carried out over a three-day period on general medical and surgical wards at the beginning of continence awareness month. Nursing notes and medical charts on all patients over 65 years old were reviewed for documentation of continence status pre-admission, inpatient continence status, continence wear and reason for continence wear. A re-audit was conducted eight weeks later. Results All patients had a documented continence status. Fifty-nine patients were included in the initial audit. Forty-four were continent preadmission. Of these, twelve had documented incontinence wear as inpatients. Documented rationale for incontinence wear included frequency (n=2) secondary to [urinary tract infection (UTI) (n=1), and not documented (n=1)], mixed continence (n=1), cognition (n=1), mobility (n=7) and not documented (n=1). Sixty-eight patients were included in a re-audit. Forty patients were continent preadmission. Among them, fourteen had documented incontinence wear as an inpatient. Documented rationale for incontinence wear included frequency (n=1) with no documented reason, acutely unwell (n=1), cognition (n=5), mobility (n=3), reassurance (n=2) and not documented (n=2). Conclusion Although continence status was well documented, a significant number of patients who were continent pre-admission were using incontinence wear as inpatients. The rationale for incontinence wear varied significantly. The increase in incontinence wear usage between audits highlights the need for sustained proactive identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired incontinence. Future projects should focus on continence promotion strategies in this population, quality improvement and education of appropriate use of incontinence wear to mitigate these risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207