Moving to a Culture of Safety in Community Home Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Community home health care workers and their clients are faced with a mixture of occupational health and safety challenges that are not typically experienced by health care providers or patients in the acute care sector. The aim of this project was to explore the concept of safety in community home health in one health care authority in British Columbia. METHODS: A participatory action research approach was employed to explore staff and client safety risks in this environment. In the first phase, three focus groups were held with staff (n = 39) and the data analysed to identify themes. These were validated by additional focus groups. In the second phase, interviews were held with staff followed by chart reviews. Finally, in phase three, an interdisciplinary working group developed a risk identification tool for staff which was subsequently piloted. The exploration focused on answering the following questions: What constitutes safety in community home health care? What are the priority areas for action in relation to safety? What type of risk identification would be most helpful to community health workers to prepare them adequately to meet their clients' and their own safety needs? RESULTS: Risk themes identified included: poor communication, acute care staff not understanding the needs of community staff, working alone, mobility, medication concerns, lack of pre-screening of clients' homes, and community health workers accepting a high degree of risk. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that typical notions of safety and risk in acute care are not easily translated into the community sector, that staff and clients' safety concerns are intertwined, and staff require better and more timely information from acute care staff when patients are discharged home.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".