The impact of Neighbourhood Team Development on resident quality of life in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Long-term care (LTC) residents often experience poor quality of life (QOL). Culture change has been proposed as an approach to improve resident centredness in care, thereby aiming to enhance residents' QOL. This article reports on one of the findings of the implementation of an organisational culture change approach, Neighbourhood Team Development (NTD). A retrospective cohort design was used to explore resident QOL scores. The sample included 232 residents across six Ontario LTC homes. Quantitative data were collected through the Resident Assessment Instrument–Minimum Data Set 2.0 (RAI-MDS 2.0) and the interRAI Self-Report QOL Survey for Long Term Care Facilities (SQOL-LTCF). Results demonstrated that culture change interventions, such as NTD, improve residents' QOL scores (+3.5 points, p = 0.0034). This article also adds to knowledge on the use of the SQOL-LTCF as a standardised assessment tool to measure QOL in LTC, and provides rationale to include resident QOL as a key outcome measure in quality improvement initiatives and care modelling in LTC homes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".