Close care provider–resident relationships in long‐term care environments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyse perceptions of residents, family and care providers, with regard to close care provider-resident relationships in long-term care. BACKGROUND: The nature of care provider-resident relationships in long-term care is crucial to the quality of life of residents. Clinical observations and anecdotal evidence suggest that close relationships exist between residents and care providers. However, research exploring how these relationships are defined and measured is only in an early stage of development. DESIGN: The study employed a descriptive design. METHODS: Twenty-five residents and their family and 32 care providers (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and health care aides) from two units in a long-term care facility were interviewed separately and asked to comment on whether they perceived themselves to be in a close care provider-resident relationship. All transcripts were analysed using a comparative method. RESULTS: Care providers perceived the closeness of relationships by the degree of reciprocity they experienced with their residents and by their emotional connection with them. Residents defined close relationships with care providers based on the care providers' caring attitude and behaviours. Family determined the closeness of relationships between their relatives and care providers according to the positive effects of the care providers' behaviours on their relatives' well being. In addition, care providers, residents and family accredited different factors as influencing the closeness of the care provider-resident relationship. CONCLUSION: Care providers, residents and family members defined close care provider-resident relationships differently. All groups spoke about the need for connectedness, but mentioned inadequate staffing and workload as barriers to care providers being able to create time for meaningful one-on-one relationships. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results have implications for how close care provider-resident relationships are conceptualized and measured and, ultimately, for enhancing resident care in long-term care facilities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».