Administrators and Quality of Care in Long-Term Care Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This exploratory study investigated administrator and facility-related predictors of quality of care in long-term care facilities. Quality was measured using several unmet standards of care identified in the last inspection report of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2007). Supplemental data were gathered from surveys mailed to all 602 long-term care administrators in Ontario, Canada, 302 of whom completed the questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test sets of hypotheses linking characteristics of administrators and those of the long-term care facility to quality of care. Education and experience as an administrator in a participant's current position had a moderate positive influence on quality of care; however, negative associations were found between administrator salary and effort devoted to resident care problems and quality of care. In addition, smaller facilities, being located in less populated communities, and administrators with a nursing background significantly affected quality of care in a positive manner. KEYWORDS: long-term care facilitynursing homeadministratorquality of carequantitative researchbuilt environment
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".