MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157106301 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040131

Staffing levels in not-for-profit and for-profit long-term care facilities: Does type of ownership matter?

2005· article· en· W2157106301 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Margaret J. McGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersVancouver Foundation
KeywordsStaffingFor profitBusinessLaundryHousekeepingNursing homesLong-term careProfit (economics)NursingHealth careMedicineFinanceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Currently there is a lot of debate about the advantages and disadvantages of for-profit health care delivery. We examined staffing ratios for direct-care and support staff in publicly funded not-for-profit and for-profit nursing homes in British Columbia. METHODS: We obtained staffing data for 167 long-term care facilities and linked these to the type of facility and ownership of the facility. All staff were members of the same bargaining association and received identical wages in both not-for-profit and for-profit facilities. Similar public funding is provided to both types of facilities, although the amounts vary by the level of functional dependence of the residents. We compared the mean number of hours per resident-day provided by direct-care staff (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and resident care aides) and support staff (housekeeping, dietary and laundry staff) in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities, after adjusting for facility size (number of beds) and level of care. RESULTS: The nursing homes included in our study comprised 76% of all such facilities in the province. Of the 167 nursing homes examined, 109 (65%) were not-for-profit and 58 (35%) were for-profit; 24% of the for-profit homes were part of a chain, and the remaining homes were owned by a single operator. The mean number of hours per resident-day was higher in the not-for-profit facilities than in the for-profit facilities for both direct-care and support staff and for all facility levels of care. Compared with for-profit ownership, not-for-profit status was associated with an estimated 0.34 more hours per resident-day (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.49, p < 0.001) provided by direct-care staff and 0.23 more hours per resident-day (95% CI 0.15-0.30, p < 0.001) provided by support staff. INTERPRETATION: Not-for-profit facility ownership is associated with higher staffing levels. This finding suggests that public money used to provide care to frail eldery people purchases significantly fewer direct-care and support staff hours per resident-day in for-profit long-term care facilities than in not-for-profit facilities.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207