Launching ‘Namaste Care’ in Canada: findings from training sessions and initial perceptions of an end-of-life programme for people with advanced dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multisensory approaches and programmes have been developed to improve the quality of both life and dying for people with advanced dementia. However, little is known about the experiences of staff, family and others involved in the use of these programmes, and in the relevant education provided to improve the quality of life of residents living with advanced dementia in long-term care homes. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore early experiences associated with the implementation of a new programme called 'Namaste Care' in two Canadian long-term care homes. METHODS: A multiple methods design was used. This included a survey to evaluate a 2-day education programme and qualitative description of interview data that explored experiences during the first 3 months of implementation. RESULTS: Survey respondents included 44 long-term care staff and 44 others (primarily family) who had attended a 2-day training session or public lecture. Interviews were undertaken with 18 staff, 5 family members and 2 volunteers to generate qualitative descriptions about the last 3 months of implementation of the 2-day education programme. The majority of those who attended training rated this as excellent and affirmed that they now understood the purpose of 'Namaste Care'. Most endorsed that they had learned some essentials of 'Namaste Care' delivery. The majority of those who attended the public lecture were very satisfied with the education, and better understood how this novel programme could be implemented in long-term care. Qualitative description of interview data revealed that participants were positive about 'Namaste Care' in long-term care, and identified both barriers and facilitators to implementation as well as recommendations to help with future implementation. CONCLUSIONS: These study findings support the use of a facility-wide educational programme to help launch a new innovation in long-term care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".