“They don't just disappear”: Acknowledging death in the long-term care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the value of a formal room blessing ritual held within a long-term care facility, from the perspectives of staff, residents, and family members. METHOD: A qualitative research study involving interviews with staff, residents, and family members was conducted to examine the perceived value of a room blessing ritual. RESULTS: Twenty-four room blessing attendees participated in the study (nine staff, eight residents, and seven family members). Attendees felt that the room blessing provided an opportunity to formally acknowledge the death of the resident and their grief; the majority felt that this was a positive experience and that it provided an element of closure. Staff members and residents expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to connect with family members of the deceased to express their condolences during the ritual. Participants also identified the inclusivity of the ritual (i.e., an open invitation to all staff, residents, and family members) as a positive aspect that served as a reminder that others shared in their grief. Staff members felt that blessing the room for the new resident was an important component of the ritual, helping to bridge the gap between mourning and welcoming a new person. Staff, residents, and family members felt that the room blessing positively reflected the mission and values of the facility. The most highly valued aspect of the ritual for all attendees was the sharing of stories about the deceased to celebrate that person's life. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Long-term care facilities need to recognize that formal supports to manage the bereavement needs of staff and residents, such as a room blessing ritual, should be incorporated into their model for managing end-of-life care, given the relationship between the emotional health of staff and the quality of care provided for residents.
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 | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".