A Seat at the Table: The Positioning of Families During Care Conferences in Nursing Homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current nursing home policy emphasizes the need for collaborative, team-based care planning in which families and/or residents are actively involved. Resident care conferences are common where care providers, families, and/or residents discuss and coordinate resident care needs and evaluate care goals. This study critically examines the process, structure, and content of care conferences to expand our understanding of how resident care is negotiated among care providers and families in this context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study was part of a larger critical ethnography examining the negotiation of care work among care providers, families, and residents in three purposively selected nursing homes in British Columbia, Canada. Thirty-seven care conferences were observed. Field notes and interview data were thematically analyzed with a focus on what was said, who said what and to whom, whose voice was privileged, and how power manifested between care providers, families, and/or residents. RESULTS: As illustrated by three key themes, Exclusion by Process-Following Script, Exclusion by Content-Scripted Reports, and Exclusion through Devalued Knowledge, families were overtly and covertly excluded from contributing to the care conferences. As such, families' presence did not guarantee open communication or active solicitation of their perspectives. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The use of predetermined agendas and processes, clinically generic reporting, and technical jargon reproduced the structural inequality between care providers and families making collaboration difficult to effectively negotiate. For care conferences to meaningfully contribute to person-centered care, it is imperative that mutual exchange be promoted and families empowered to participate as equals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".