<i>Vancouver Dietitians’ Perspectives on</i> Their Roles in Long-term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study, we sought insight into the clinical practice experiences of dietitians working independently (i.e., as the only dietitian in a facility) in long-term care (LTC). We hoped to learn about their work roles and identify specific factors that facilitate their success. METHODS: Grounded theory methods were used. Data were collected through 11 semi-structured interviews. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method, which included coding, memo writing, and ongoing discussion between the two researchers. RESULTS: When speaking about their roles, participants identified both specific tasks they had to complete and broader roles they fulfilled. Many of these roles focused on relationships with co-workers and building effective multidisciplinary teams. Effective teamwork was linked with dietitians' personal feelings of success in providing resident-focused nutritional care in the LTC setting. CONCLUSIONS: The LTC dietitians' various roles were generally self-appointed, and they focused more on the purpose of their work than on tasks. A primary focus of these roles was the multidisciplinary team and the promotion of effective teamwork, especially, but not exclusively, as it applies to the provision of nutritional care. Successful teamwork was linked to dietitians' reports of personal success in their work.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".