MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Associated With Staff Injuries in Intermediate Care Facilities in British Columbia, Canada

2004· article· en· W2090165264 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStaffingPsychosocialMedicineOccupational safety and healthHuman factors and ergonomicsNursingPoison controlInjury preventionWork (physics)PsychologyEnvironmental healthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Large variations in staff injury rates across intermediate care facilities suggest that injuries may be driven by facility-specific work environment factors. OBJECTIVES: To identify work organization, psychosocial, and biomechanical factors associated with staff injuries in intermediate care facilities, to pinpoint management practices that may contribute to lower staff injuries, and to generate a provisional conceptual framework of work organization characteristics. METHODS: Four representative intermediate care facilities with high staff injury rates and four facilities with comparable low staff injury rates were selected from Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) databases. Methods included on-site injury data collection and review of associated WCB data, ergonomic study of workloads, a telephone survey of resident care staff, manager-staff interviews, and focus groups. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients identified associations between variables. Analysis of variance and t tests were used to determine differences between low and high staff injury rate facilities. Content analysis guided the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between low and high staff injury rate facilities in terms of workers' characteristics, residents' characteristics, and per capita public funding. The ergonomic study supported the survey data in demonstrating a relation among low staffing levels, greater muscle loading, and greater risk of injury. As compared with facilities that had high staff injury rates, facilities with low staff injury rates had significantly more favorable staffing levels and supportive work environments. Perceived quality of care was strongly correlated with burnout, health, and satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Safer work environments are promoted by favorable staffing levels, convenient access to mechanical lifts, workers' perceptions of employer fairness, and management practices that support the caregiving role.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it