An oxymoron of long-term care—Sheltering-in-place during an evacuation: A literature review of the best practices of evacuation and sheltering-in-place for long-term care facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are defined as residential facilities that are home to elderly patrons who are no longer able to live independently. These facilities require comprehensive emergency planning to provide the best response to the threat of a disaster for their residents. However, LTCFs are often overlooked in disaster planning, leaving them to work independently to create suitable arrangements in the event of a disaster. This article examines the literature on evacuating and compares it to the literature on sheltering-in-place for LTCFs. Conclusions regarding best practices are also provided. METHODS: A literature review and Internet search were completed in July 2016. Information was entered onto a spreadsheet listing the key points of each article, which was reviewed for emerging themes. RESULTS: Out of the 399 acquired articles and grey literature found during the research portion of this article, 30 were deemed pertinent, 22 of which appear in this article. All included articles were peer reviewed. Themes emerging from these articles include the persistent absence of research into the best practices for LTCFs during emergencies and the difficulties of evacuating and sheltering-in-place with frail populations. CONCLUSION: While there is no one right answer for all scenarios, sheltering-in-place appears to be the default safe option for those in LTCFs-with the assumption that the facility has taken steps toward preparation, such as purchasing generators and securing enough food, water, and medical supplies to sustain the residents, staff, and families of both for 7 days. Additionally, a LTCF needs to devise contingency plans for evacuation if necessary, to be fully prepared for a catastrophic event.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".