Building capacity in palliative care for personal support workers in long‐term care through experiential learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing palliative care in long-term care (LTC) homes is an area of growing importance. As a result, attention is being given to exploring effective palliative care learning strategies for personal support workers (PSWs) who provide the most hands-on care to LTC residents. AIM: The purpose of this intervention was to explore hospice visits as an experiential learning strategy to increase the capacity of PSWs in palliative care, specifically related to their new learning, and how they anticipated this experience changed their practices in LTC. DESIGN: This study utilised a qualitative descriptive design. METHODS: Eleven PSWs from four Ontario LTC homes were sent to their local hospice to shadow staff for one to two days. After the visit, PSWs completed a questionnaire with open-ended questions based on critical reflection. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: PSWs commented on the extent of resident-focused care at the hospice and how palliative care interventions were tailored to meet the needs of residents. PSWs were surprised with the lack of routine at the hospice but felt that hospice staff prioritised their time effectively in order to meet family and client care needs. Some PSWs were pleased to see how well integrated the PSW role is on the community hospice team without any hierarchical relationships. Finally, PSWs felt that other LTC staff would benefit from palliative care education and becoming more comfortable with talking about death and dying with other staff, residents and family members. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the benefits of PSWs attending a hospice as an experiential learning strategy. Future work is needed to evaluate this strategy using more rigorous designs as a way to build capacity within PSWs to provide optimal palliative care for LTC residents and their family members. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: PSWs need to be recognised as important members within the interdisciplinary team. PSWs who shadow staff at hospices view this experience as a positive strategy to meet their learning needs related to palliative care.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".