Staff-based measures of individualized care for persons with dementia in long-term care facilities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although individualized care for persons with dementia in long-term care institutions has become accepted as best practice, there have not been easy-to-use, multi-item reliable measures of the concept for scientific research or for administrative use. Following review of the literature, consultation with experts in the field, and direct observation within long-term care facilities, three domains of individualized care (knowing the person/resident, resident autonomy and choice, communication — staff-to-staff and staff-to-resident) were chosen as appropriate for the development of multi-item paper-and-pencil staff completion scales. These scales are presented in this article, including, where appropriate, shorter scales derived from factor analyses. The findings suggest that these domains of individualized care lend themselves to brief multi-item measures and that not all conceptual domains of individualized care co-occur in practice. Further, supplemental staff training in individualized care practice may be warranted.
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.
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 it