Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine front line practices in long-term care (LTC) facilities and the conditions which variously preserve, enhance and constrain workers' efforts to provide personalized and identity supporting work with older adults deemed cognitively impaired. This interest derived from my experience as a student in a longterm care facility setting and matured through subsequent years of practice experience with cognitively impaired older adults. A modified form of institutional ethnography was employed to explore how personal support work in long-term care settings was "socially organized" by local and extra-local forces (Campbell & Gregor, 2002). A qualitative study was conducted, involving semistructured interviews with personal support workers employed in long-term care facilities. Participants were recruited from two, non-profit long-term care facilities in Southern Ontario. While small, this sample of front line experience can illuminate current practices in long-term care and stimulate conceptualization of its challenges and possibilities. A predominant theme in the findings is the constraint of 'time', which is exacerbated by factors, such as: staff shortages; Ministry standards, and demands of care; and performing underappreciated and undervalued tasks. Participants' accounts of their work with cognitively impaired older adults revealed their commitment to personalize care. Participants also described how they strove to negotiate time and organizational constraints in order to facilitate identity-supporting work. Lastly, participants offered suggestions for proposed changes to the organizational culture of long-term care and to improving their work conditions. In conclusion, the possibilities of organizational change efforts aimed at enhancing personalized care are considered, along with their policy and resource implications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".