Ethics and Safety in Home Care: Perspectives on Home Support Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home support workers (HSWs) encounter unique safety issues in their provision of home care. These issues raise ethical concerns, affecting the care workers provide to seniors and other recipients. This paper is derived from a subproject of a larger Canada-wide study, Safety at Home: A Pan-Canadian Home Care Safety Study, released in June 2013 by the Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Semi-structured, face-to-face, audiotaped interviews were conducted with providers, clients and informal caregivers in British Columbia, Manitoba and New Brunswick to better understand their perceptions of patient safety in home care. Using the BC data only, we then compared our findings to findings of other BC studies focusing on safety in home care that were conducted over the past decade. Through our interviews and comparative analyses it became clear that HSWs experienced significant inequities in providing home care. Utilizing a model depicting concerns of and for HSWs developed by Craven and colleagues (2012), we were able to illustrate the physical, spatial, interpersonal and temporal concerns set in the context of system design that emphasized the ethical dilemmas of HSWs in home care. Our data suggested the necessity of adding a fifth domain, organizational (system design). In this paper, we issue a call for stronger advocacy for home care and improved collaboration and resource equity between institutional care and community 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".