From Familiar Faces to Family: Staff and Resident Relationships in Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Long-term care (LTC) facilities are increasingly intent on creating a "homelike" atmosphere for residents. Although residential staff are integral to the construction of a home within LTC settings, their perceptions have been relatively absent from the literature. METHOD: Thirty-two LTC staff participants were interviewed about their experiences and perceptions of the physical environment and conceptualizations of home, and thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: An overarching category-interpersonal relationships-emerged from our analyses emphasizing the importance of relationships in creating a homelike environment within institutional settings. Sub-themes that inform our understanding include the following: (a) Staff members' perceptions of home; (b) "Their second home": Adjustment to and familiarity in LTC; and (c) "We become family": Relationality makes a home. DISCUSSION: The study provides evidence to inform current policies and practices in LTC. Specifically, enough time and space should be given to residents and staff to create and maintain personal relationships to make residential care homelike.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".