MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947281861 · doi:10.1097/ncm.0000000000000320

Factors That Influence Home Care Case Managers' Work and Workload

2019· article· en· W2947281861 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly D. Fraser, Lisa Garland Baird, Daley Laing, Jonathan Lai, Neelam Saleem Punjani

Bibliographic record

VenueProfessional Case Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkloadWork (physics)Nonprobability samplingData collectionJournaling file systemNursingPsychologyBusinessOperations managementMedicineComputer scienceSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Home care services are increasing across Canada and in other developed nations. There has been increased pressure on home care programs to not only accept more clients more rapidly but also work more efficiently. Case management is an approach through which clients access and receive home care. With both rising numbers of clients and growing complexity among them, case managers' work and workload are also increasing. The demands on case managers and expansion in caseloads are happening without an increase in resources or funding. With case manager work increasing steadily, an understanding of the factors that influence their work and workload is vital. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore what factors influence case managers' work and workload. METHODS: This study used an ethnographic approach. It took place in Alberta, Canada, in 3 home care offices in urban and suburban geographic areas. Purposive sampling was used, and participants included 28 home care case managers with predominantly long-term clients (>3 months on home care), 3 site managers, and 1 project lead. Data collection methods included semistructured interviews, nonparticipant observation, participant journaling, and focus groups. RESULTS: Case manager works were portrayed in 2 key ways: the number and type of tasks a case manager was required to complete and the amount of time and energy needed to complete a task. The factors that influence case manager work and workload fall into 3 overarching categories: structural, operational, or individual factors. DISCUSSION: The 3 overarching categories, as well as interactions between various factors, contribute to what is known about case managers' work and workload. Participants found it difficult to discuss the factors in isolation because the interaction and "messiness" of the factors were inherent in their actions and stories about their work and workload. Workload includes not only the easily captured work such as direct care and specific activities such as assessment but also diverse forms of invisible work such as problem solving, rapport building, and caseload management, as well as emotional work such as coping, stress management, and team support. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT: Case managers' work and workload in home care are important phenomena. In a climate of budgetary restraint and an aging population, which seemingly prefer home care as much as the system desires to provide it as a main option for care, it is important to capture, recognize, and legitimize an understanding of case managers' work and workload. Increased knowledge in this area could, in turn, transforms both home care and case management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProfessional Case ManagementSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207