The aching backbone: perceptions and experiences of care aides in long term residential care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Care aides provide most of the direct care for residents in long-term residential care (LTRC), and thus hold the greatest potential to improve residents' quality of life.Twothirds of residents in these facilities are older adults with dementia.The number of care aides working in LTRC needed to support Canada's aging population is only expected to increase with time.Like residents in LTRC, care aides are a disenfranchised population.There is little understanding of what are the experiences and perceptions of care aides in LTRC.This doctoral thesis adds to the scarce body of knowledge that sheds light on the experience of care aides in LTRC.This study was informed by the literature on personcentered care and personhood theory, as well as critical gerontology and institutional theory.The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences and perceptions held by care aides in LTRC and to identify their perceived barriers and facilitators toward the delivery of care to residents. Method:The overall methodology for this study was a qualitative design, using ethnographic data-generating methods from one complex-care floor located within a campus of care facility in rural and remote Western Canada.Data sources for this study included the following: semi-structured interviews (70 hours) with 31 care aides, naturalistic observation (170 hours), and reflexive journaling (20,000 words).Thematic analysis was used to examine all data sources.Results: Care aides' experiences entering and working in LTRC are varied; however, there are common overarching themes, including not being adequately trained for the realities of working as care providers and the scope of practice they are expected to fulfill within LTRC, as well as being under supported in their role.Participants report strong feelings of responsibility and affection for their residents, yet they perceive insurmountable barriers in their role that prevent them from delivering the care they would like to give.These barriers include the following: (i) lack of standardized education and training; (ii) lack of proper equipment; (iii) lack of autonomy over their residents; (iv) politics and bullying within the power hierarchy of LTRC; and (v) chronic unaddressed moral distress among care aides.Suggestions for improvement of care delivery in LTRC include the following: (i) standardization of care aide education and training; (ii) incorporation of reporting measures specifically for care aides; and (iii) increased autonomy of care aides over their residents.Implications: The support and empowerment of care aides in LTRC are fundamental in the delivery of good care to residents.Care aides have expressed that their attitudes toward their job are low because they feel unheard and voiceless within their work environment.Efforts to empower care aides' voices should be developed and implemented to meet the needs of a large segment of Canada's population living with dementia-residents in LTRC.Keywords: care aides,
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».