Measuring and monitoring safety of older adults living in retirement homes: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The global population of older adults has grown at an unprecedented rate, and projections indicate that the number of older adults will continue to increase considerably in the coming decades. The clinical complexity of older adults living in retirement homes, also known as assisted living settings, is also increasing, and the regulations to ensure quality and safety standards in retirement homes are highly variable. The purpose of this scoping review is to map and summarise the methods used to monitor and measure the safety of older adults living in retirement homes, providing an overview of existing approaches and areas requiring further investigation. METHODS: This scoping review will follow the five stages of the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review process. We will report this review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A comprehensive search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science Core Collection) will be performed, and reference lists of included articles will be searched. We will conduct a two-step screening process, data extraction and analysis of the included studies. We will include all primary study designs that report on safety measurement and monitoring of any type of harms. Relevant grey literature will also be identified. We will exclude studies that only report results from facilities providing 24-hour skilled nursing care or specialised care services, and those not published in English or French. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8rheq). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is needed for the review, and we plan to present the results at research conferences and in a peer-reviewed article. Our findings may inform future research studies that seek to support and improve safety practices in retirement homes.
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 | 0.117 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.019 |
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".