Dying and death within the culture of long‐term care facilities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To identify the influence of the culture in Canadian long-term care facilities on the awareness of impending death and initiation of a palliative approach to care for residents aged 85 years and older. BACKGROUND: Many long-term care residents die after long, dwindling dying trajectories, yet palliative care is often not provided until within a few hours or days of death. DESIGN: Focused ethnography. METHODS: Data were collected in three long-term care facilities in south-central Ontario, Canada, through interviews with residents, family members and staff members, observation, artefact review and a focus group. Data were analysed using a constant comparative technique. RESULTS: Four cultural influences on the awareness of impending death and consequent initiation of a palliative approach to care were identified: (i) the care demands in long-term care facilities and the resources available to meet these demands; (ii) the belief that long-term care facilities are for living; (iii) the belief that no one should die in pain; and (iv) the belief that no one should die alone. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly held beliefs about the role of long-term care facilities and what is viewed as acceptable care in them mediated the acknowledgement of dying. Late initiation of palliative care was the consequence. In addition, the contextual factors of a low staff-to-resident ratio and reduced staff preparation for palliative care were also influential for a delayed response to dying. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Because strongly held long-term care cultural beliefs underlie care, more timely palliative care for long-term care residents is likely to require the development of an understanding that living and dying are not dichotomous, but rather unfold together from admission until death. Enhanced staff-to-resident ratios and staff training on palliative care will also be necessary to permit long-term care facility staff to focus beyond the currently expected day-to-day care of living residents to provide high-quality end-of-life care throughout the often protracted decline to death for residents of long-term care facilities.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".