Nursing home models and modes of service delivery: Review of outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within contemporary approaches to nursing home care, the staff composition and task allocation influence paid caregiver experiences, and in turn affect the quality of care provided to residents. In this scoping review, we profile several different models of nursing home care with their associated modes of service delivery, and summarize the varied reports of effectiveness of these models and modes of service delivery. While anecdotal evidence supports the Eden Alternative® Neighbourhood or Household models, empirical support for the consistent assignment mode of service delivery within the Eden Neighbourhood or Household models is not extensive. More persuasive evidence supports the more advanced Eden Greenhouse model with its embedded flexible assignment policies and self-managed teams of care aides. Flexible assignments are a design element of the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Society (ADARDS) model as well. Although consistent assignments for paid caregivers continue to be targeted by organizations, self-managed teams and flexible assignments may be more ideal modes of nursing home service delivery, especially now, as the average age, frailty level, and acuity level of nursing home residents is increasing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".