Implementation of a Scheduled Toileting Program in a Long Term Care Facility: Evaluating the Impact on Injury Risk to Caregiving Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of a scheduled toileting program on the risk of injury to caregivers and on resident agitation or aggressive behaviors. Injury data, ergonomic assessments, staff questionnaires, and resident agitation checklists were used to evaluate the program in a 75 bed unit, with a similar unit acting as a comparison. The program resulted in an increased percentage of residents toileted regularly in the intervention unit, while aggressive incidents declined in both groups. Staff in the intervention unit reported a significantly lower perceived risk of injury to the head and neck than the comparison group. Although the program resulted in increased workload to manage multitasking, monitor an additional aspect of scheduled care, and perform more toileting transfers, overall risk of physical injury was reduced. The toileting program, a shift toward resident focused care, and enhanced agitation awareness combined to reduce resident handling injuries and resident agitation expressed as verbal behaviors or emotional upset, but not as physical behaviors. Clear communication, mentoring, and monitoring were important for successfully changing care practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".