Types and patterns of safety concerns in home care: staff perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality health care in the home is dependent on having a safe environment to provide care. This analysis is based on the data from a larger study aimed at understanding key issues in the delivery and receipt of home support services from the perspectives of home support workers (HSWs), older adult clients and family members. This analysis focuses on HSWs perspectives of safety. OBJECTIVE: To explore the types and patterns of safety concerns staff encountered in home care settings. DESIGN: In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with HSWs. The analysis included topic and analytical coding of workers' verbatim accounts. SETTING: Interviews were completed in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 115 HSWs participated. The average age was 50 years, and the average tenure in this sector was 11.5 years. Fully, 71% of workers had completed at least some college-level education, and 69% of workers were born outside of Canada. RESULTS: Workers identified four types of safety concerns: physical, spatial, interpersonal and temporal. We developed a conceptual model of HSW safety that demonstrates the: types of safety concerns; the multi-dimensional and intersectional nature of safety concerns and the factors that intensify or mitigate safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identifies numerous HSW safety concerns, each requiring tailored interventions and strategies. Where multiple concerns intersect, the complexity and precarious nature of the home care workspace is revealed. The identification of mitigating and intensifying factors points to future interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".