The impact of mode of assignment on relational care in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I Canada, over the past decade, care aides’ assistive and caring roles have expanded considerably due to dramatic shifts in staffing patterns in nursing homes. These shifts are due in part to tremendous health care cost pressures faced by federal and provincial governments and in part to new approaches to health care delivery. In contemporary approaches, the presence of Registered Nurses in long-term care facilities has diminished, while care aides are employed in escalating numbers. Care aides have become the most central or the most accessible/available service providers to residents. In many facilities, teams of care aides who used provided care to all residents have been abolished. Newer approaches favor consistent (non-rotating) assignment of residents to care aides. In theory, consistent assignments foster closer, more intimate relationships between care aides and nursing home residents and facilitate familiarity between care aides and families of residents. This ethnographic study is a portrayal of care aides’ thoughts and feelings about their consistent assignments. Experiential data were collected from 22 care aides working in five nursing homes in a western Canadian city. The data were analyzed utilizing constant comparison to identify common themes. Care aides who were consistently assigned to residents described working without reference to each other. Some described losing contact with residents/families not assigned to them. Others described feeling overwhelmed, isolated, and confined by this mode of assignment and described a strong need for collegial fellowship and friendship. Experienced care aides stressed the importance of shared tasks, interchangeable tasks, and joint decisions, and indicated that a return to teamwork would help them to moderate or buffer the effects of stressful events and/or work environments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".