Enhancing Relationships Between Care Providers and Residents in Long-Term Care: DESIGNING A MODEL OF CARE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in three different areas was examined and several conclusions can be drawn. Continuity of care provider is critical to understanding the resident and to developing relationships with the resident over time (Patchner, 1987; Teresi et al., 1993a). The teaching of interactional skills is not enough; the care provider must be engaged in some way, such as learning about the person through life stories (Best, 1998; Caris-Verhallen et al., 2000; Coker et al., 1998; Heliker, 1999; McCallion et al., 1999; Pietrukowicz & Johnson, 1991; Williams & Tappen, 1999). If care providers are called to enhance relationships with residents, they too must be supported in their work environments (Hallberg & Norberg, 1993; Montegar et al., 1977; Kovach & Krejci, 1998). Finally, research confirmed positive secondary resident and care provider outcomes can be achieved following the development of holding relationships. Overall, preliminary empirical support for the capacities of the care provider--reliability, empathy, continuity--and for the requirement for support were established from a review of the literature. However, no intervention studies were found that incorporated the complete set of theoretical variables. Testing the combined influence of these variables, as conceptualized by Winnicott's (1970) theory of relationships, and the manner in which they affect the holding relationship for residents, and subsequently secondary care provider and resident outcomes, is essential to assess the usefulness of this theory to relationship building in LTC. Caregiving relationships involve all kinds of social interaction during the course of which the patient's sense of self-worth can either be enhanced or thwarted (Agich, 1990). Therefore, a milieu should be developed to accentuate care provider-resident relationships and lead to a systematic and encompassing framework of positive expectations on the part of all nursing personnel involved. A model of care focusing on relationships may be one means to this end.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it