Staff personhood in dementia care settings: “Do they care about me?”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This article aims to examine RCAs' own experiences of personhood in dementia care settings. BACKGROUND: Conceptually, person-centred care entails fostering the personhood of residents and the residential care aides (RCAs) who provide much of their hands-on care. To date, however, staff personhood has been overlooked in the empirical literature. DESIGN: The study was part of a larger focused ethnographic project exploring how the organisational care environment impedes or facilitates the provision of quality dementia care. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 23 RCAs and more than 230 hours of participant observation were conducted in two nursing homes with specialised dementia units in British Columbia, Canada. RESULTS: Two overarching themes, "personhood undermined-management-staff relations" and "personhood undermined-workplace policies and practices" emerged, illustrating how, despite exposure to features believed beneficial to their working environment (e.g., favourable staffing ratios, relatively good remuneration), RCAs encountered repeated affronts to their personhood. The first theme encompasses the importance of being known (i.e., as persons and of their job demands) and valued (i.e., appreciated for their work in non-monetary terms). The second highlights the salience of work-life balance, full-staffing coverage and supportive human resource practices. CONCLUSIONS: RCAs' experiences reveal how the ongoing search for cost-efficiencies, cost-containment and cost-accountability overshadows their individuality, indicating a key disconnect between conceptual ideals and workplace realities. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Organisations are encouraged to consider creating person-centred management and workplace practices that provide tangible evidence that RCAs, and their work, matter.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".