FAMILY MEMBERS’ PERSPECTIVES ON NEGOTIATING A CULTURE OF SAFETY IN RESIDENTIAL LONG-TERM CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responsive behaviours between residents (RBBR) are negative and aggressive physical, sexual, or verbal interactions that occur between some older adults living in Residential Long-Term Care (RLTC). Despite the growing understanding of RBBR, to date research has focused on residents and staff, yet, families, many of whom spend a significant amount of time on-site, have largely been excluded from this research. The purpose of this presentation is to describe family members’ perspectives on responsive behaviours between residents in RLTC. The methodology for the study was critical ethnography comprising semi-structured interviews with 12 family members and over 100 hours of participant observations. A thematic analysis was undertaken using constant comparative methods. Under the over-arching theme of Negotiating Safety, family members discussed activities Promoting Safety of themselves and the safety of residents. However, Role Ambiguity impacted family members’ actions in relation to witnessed events of responsive behaviours between residents. Contextual Features such as the physical environment and organizational context (e.g., staffing levels) contributed to how safety was perceived and negotiated. These findings highlight family members’ perspectives of safety based on experiences of their relatives’ being victims or perpetrators of RBBR, their witnessing and active attempts to diffuse situations even where their relative was not involved, and the lack of information and disclosure of RBBR by staff. Study findings have important implications for workplace policy and practice, underscoring the integral need for families to be offered education and support around their unavoidable role in managing RBBR.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".