Dementia Care at the Intersection of Regulation and Reflexivity: A Critical Realist Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To understand point-of-care decisions, and in particular rule breaking, by personal support workers (PSWs) regarding institutionalized elders with dementia within a context of legislative and organizational care mandates. METHODS: Qualitative baseline data including focus groups and semi-structured interviews with PSWs (n = 26) and supervisors (n = 9) were collected during a 2-year, multi-method trial of a 12-week interprofessional arts-informed educational intervention in two Alzheimer support units and were analyzed using a critical realist approach. RESULTS: PSW care decisions were the outcome of a discordant interrelationship between PSWs' reflective deliberations, and legislative and organizational care mandates. PSWs responded to discordance through rule breaking in order to provide individualized care. Unbeknownst to PSWs, rule breaking was contingent upon supervisors' case-by-case complicity as they strove to balance fears of regulatory citations with private assessment of the soundness of PSW logic. DISCUSSION: Quality care emerges at the intersection of policies governing long-term care, PSW rule breaking, and the supportive but undisclosed role supervisors play in these violations. Understanding this complexity has important implications for initiatives to improve care practices and to challenge legislation and policies that impede dementia care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.078 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.145 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".