RECONSTRUCTING CARE PROCESSES IN NOVA SCOTIA LONG-TERM-CARE HOMES: A CONSTRUCTIVIST GROUNDED THEORY STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The complex medical and social needs of long-term care (LTC) residents in Nova Scotia continue to challenge the existing care processes. Implementing the international resident assessment instrument long-term care facility (InterRAI LTCF) tool and software has not adequately met the care expectations of residents and their families. This shortfall highlights a critical gap in the alignment between the technological solution and the personalized care required by this population. Purpose: The purpose of this constructivist grounded theory study was to provide an in-depth understanding of the care processes involved in using the InterRAI LTCF tool for quality care improvement from the perspective of LTC residents, substitute decision-makers, and nurses. To achieve this purpose, the study was guided by the following objectives: a) Describe the processes of care involved in using the InterRAI LTCF tool at the point of care in LTC homes; b) identify problematic areas and potential solutions in care processes involving the use of the InterRAI LTCF tool; and, c) develop a substantive theory, in collaboration with residents, substitute decision-makers, and nurses, that explains how to improve care provision using the InterRAI LTCF tool for consistent health outcomes for the residents. Research Design: The constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology informed the exploration of different perspectives including LTC residents, substitute decision-makers, and nurses, focusing on improving the quality of care provided with the InterRAI LTCF tool. CGT builds on iterative collection and analysis of data, supporting an inductive process of theory formation. Sample and Setting: The study sample included 34 participants (residents, substitute decision-makers, and nurses) from eight LTC homes under the same organization in Nova Scotia. Methods/Procedure: The data collection occurred between October 2022 and April 2023, following research ethics approval from the care home and the University of Saskatchewan ethics board (REB 3490). A total of 34 participants participated in 38 semi-structured, open-ended, face-to-face interviews completed on Zoom and in-person, and guided by a flexible interview guide. The researcher audio-recorded the interviews with the participants' consent. A third-party transcriptionist transcribed the interviews verbatim, which were read for accuracy and organized in NVivo 12 software for analysis by the author. Descriptive field notes, analytical memos, coding and constant comparisons of interview responses illuminated the theoretical sampling and conceptual rendering of the data. Findings: The analysis of participants' data indicated that the contention between technology and nurses and the inherent complexity of the care process were sources of concern and apprehension within LTC homes. In this study, the participants identified the contention between technology and nurses as the basic social problem or concern and solving the problem involved Improving Care Process through Relational Caring. The participants employed the following strategies to improve the care process: relationship-centredness, intentionality, and managing change. If carried out effectively, these strategies may significantly improve the care process in LTC homes. Conclusion: Care processes in LTC homes involve a series of interrelated and interdependent events. These events included assessing residents' social and health needs, planning care interventions based on mutual agreement, implementing the interventions, and reimagining quality care through multiple lenses. In this study findings revealed the use of InterRAI assessment tool delivered through relational caring can improve care processes. In order to advance the use of InterRAI LTCF tool and software that supports its use, an inclusive change management approach must be used to address context-specific barriers while enhancing facilitators of this important technology at the point of care.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 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 ».