Bathing in residential care: understanding the experiences of residents and their care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand how changes in an older adult’s physical capacity alter their bathing preferences, how the care environment incorporates residents’ values and beliefs around bathing to fulfil these changing care needs, and how institutional factors, such as staff scheduling and communication processes, influence Resident Care Aides’ (RCAs) bathing practices. Design/methodology/approach – A multiple methods approach involving surveys and interviews with residents and RCAs in a Canadian residential care facility. This paper draws mostly from the semi-structured, qualitative interviews with older adult residents ( n =9; Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) scores > 15) and RCAs ( n =10) on two nursing units offering different bathing options. Findings – Decreasing energy levels and physical decline were commonly cited reasons for residents’ changing bathing preferences. Residents were overall very appreciative of the bathing care they received in residential care, and identified the weekly tub bath as an anticipated encounter where they experienced a valued social interaction with their assigned RCA. While identifying bathing as an occasionally stressful aspect of their work, RCAs also described the bathing experience as an intimate bonding activity. The study identified bathing as an important activity in residential care. Originality/value – Previous studies have focused on moderate to severely cognitively impaired older adults’ and their demonstration of agitated behaviours during bathing. Most participants in this study had only minor cognitive impairment, as measured by MMSE scores (average score=20.6); therefore, this study provides insight into the experiences and needs of older adults whose perspective is not generally reflected in the literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".