What makes a nursing home a home? Insights from family members and friends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of homelikeness from the perspective of family members and friends of nursing home residents across different models of nursing homes. Design/methodology/approach This mixed-methods study examined survey data collected from 397 family members and friends of residents living in 23 nursing homes representing three models of care (traditional, new augmented, and full scope). Participants completed a homelikeness scale and a measure of the importance of nursing home spaces to family members and friends. This study also involved conducting three focus groups with 20 family members and friends to provide further insights into the findings. Findings Analysis of survey data indicated quite high levels of homelikeness overall. Significant differences did emerge between traditional model nursing homes compared to new full-scope and new augmented models for all items in the homelikeness scale and for many items about nursing home spaces. Qualitative results provided insights into how homelikeness can be fostered through public and private spaces and through care and relationships. Research limitations/implications As this study was conducted in one Canadian province, the results may not be applicable to other geographic areas. In addition, there are limitations in survey response rate. Practical implications Homelikeness can be supported across models of care by fostering relationships between residents and staff, ensuring that that family and friends feel welcome, and creating public and private physical spaces that are conducive to new and ongoing relationships. Originality/value The results provide evidence to nursing home decision makers about how to foster a homelike environment in various models of nursing 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".