Intensifying Relational Care: The Challenge of Dying in Long-Term Residential 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
Although the culture change movement has sought to transform residential care facilities from warehouses of death into homes for living, there is growing recognition of the need to address dying within these settings. Drawing on data from an international and interdisciplinary study, this paper explores the state of end-of-life care in residential care facilities, identifying barriers to the provision of compassionate care for the dying, as well as promising practices and areas for future inquiry. Interviews with staff and researcher observations at 20 nursing homes in Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United States, and the United Kingdom were analyzed. Six themes were identified: the growing need for end-of-life care; the challenge of identifying a dying phase; the importance of open communication about death; the need to address bereavement of both families and staff; the need for additional training and resources; and the inadequacy of current models of care. Taken together, these findings suggest that dying intensifies the need for relational care, a type of care residential care facilities have been struggling to provide. However, while demands increase, there are also opportunities. We conclude with a reflection on the potential that the blurred boundaries between living and dying hold for experimentation in long-term residential care with visions of life and health that can include death.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it