ACTUAL VS. INTENDED USE OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT IN DEMENTIA CARE SETTINGS: STAFF PERSPECTIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While person-centred care is increasingly viewed as synonymous with good quality dementia care, its widespread adoption and integration remains elusive. Consequently, there is a need for greater examination of the organizational structure of care provision and the experiences of Residential Care Aides (RCAs), who provide the majority of hands-on care. To date, the role of the physical environment in RCAs’ care practice has been overlooked in the empirical literature. As part of a larger ethnographic study exploring the influence of the physical and organizational care environment on care provision, in-depth interviews with 29 staff (21 RCAs, 3 LPNs, 5 managers) and more than 230 hours of participant observation were conducted in two Canadian nursing homes with specialized dementia units. Thematic analyses revealed a key disconnect between the physical environment as designed and as used by RCAs in their daily care practice. The first theme, ‘it’s more for looks’, illustrates how despite the presence of features considered central to care quality (e.g., small-scale, home-like environments, well-remunerated and trained staff, and high staffing ratios), opportunities for residents’ continuity of self, meaningful engagement, and support for functional abilities were limited. The second theme, ‘environment as control’, highlights how certain aspects of the physical environment were used to control behaviours of residents and staff and, in turn, limit their choice and autonomy. Findings highlight the importance of recognizing the interrelation between environmental design, supportive organizational policy, and institutional culture in effectively implementing a person-centred approach to dementia care.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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".