The Development of a resource manual for licensed practical nurses: \nfoot care for high risk older adults in a long term care Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preventative foot practices can assist high risk older adults (65 years and older) with their mobility and independence. Licensed practical nurses can play an important role in the implementation of interventions to provide foot health and preventative care to high risk older adults in a long term care agency. Therefore, in order to assist these health providers with the knowledge required to perform thorough foot and nail assessments and implement appropriate interventions within their scope of practice, a resource manual was developed to assist with meeting this goal. An extensive literature review was completed to obtain current evidence-based information during the development of the manual. Five modules were written using Knowles’ Adult Learning Principles (1984) and Morrison, Ross and Kemp’s Model of Instructional Design (2004). These modules included various relevant topics for example, high risk feet, aging feet, skin, nail and joint pathologies. One additional module provided other resources on the module topics. This report will be presenting the process in which the resource manual was developed for licensed practical nurses using advanced nursing competencies. It identifies the implications for nursing practice, limitations, and future recommendations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.015 |
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".