Close care provider–resident relationships in long‐term care environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to analyse perceptions of residents, family and care providers, with regard to close care provider-resident relationships in long-term care. BACKGROUND: The nature of care provider-resident relationships in long-term care is crucial to the quality of life of residents. Clinical observations and anecdotal evidence suggest that close relationships exist between residents and care providers. However, research exploring how these relationships are defined and measured is only in an early stage of development. DESIGN: The study employed a descriptive design. METHODS: Twenty-five residents and their family and 32 care providers (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and health care aides) from two units in a long-term care facility were interviewed separately and asked to comment on whether they perceived themselves to be in a close care provider-resident relationship. All transcripts were analysed using a comparative method. RESULTS: Care providers perceived the closeness of relationships by the degree of reciprocity they experienced with their residents and by their emotional connection with them. Residents defined close relationships with care providers based on the care providers' caring attitude and behaviours. Family determined the closeness of relationships between their relatives and care providers according to the positive effects of the care providers' behaviours on their relatives' well being. In addition, care providers, residents and family accredited different factors as influencing the closeness of the care provider-resident relationship. CONCLUSION: Care providers, residents and family members defined close care provider-resident relationships differently. All groups spoke about the need for connectedness, but mentioned inadequate staffing and workload as barriers to care providers being able to create time for meaningful one-on-one relationships. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These results have implications for how close care provider-resident relationships are conceptualized and measured and, ultimately, for enhancing resident care in long-term care facilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".