Experiences of a Mass Interinstitutional Relocation for Long-Term Care Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explored long-term care (LTC) staff perceptions and experiences of working in LTC and providing care to residents following a mass interinstitutional relocation. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with 63 LTC workers. Thematic analyses revealed three overarching themes related to how staff members perceived their relationships with other staff members following relocation. The first theme, post-relocation relationships between staff members, included the subthemes “Staff are segregated from each other” (physical distance) and “We were a family” to “barely say hi” (psychological distance). The second theme, post-relocation stress, has two subthemes: “Staffing is our big issue” and consequences of stress: absenteeism and leave. The third theme is recommendations for improving and managing staff relationships post-relocation. Relationships among staff members are integral to working in LTC and providing care to residents following a mass interinstitutional relocation. Recommendations for improving staff relationships and morale are suggested.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".