Expériences de préposées aux bénéficiaires sur l'utilisation d'un système informatisé de gestion des soins en résidences pour personnes âgéees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing use of computerized care management systems in residences for older adults, there is very little evidence on the perceptions of caregivers regarding this technology, specifically the perceptions of orderlies. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the experiences of 17 orderlies vis-à-vis the use of the software “Soins Organisation Facilité Intérêt” (SOFI) in two senior residences in Quebec. Transcripts from four focus groups were analyzed using an inductive approach. All attendants agreed that the software was a positive asset that allowed them to better organize their tasks and documentation. In addition, they expressed the desire to use SOFI in their workflow to improve communication between themselves and with other professionals within the institution to participate in decision-making around quality of care. Finally, they insisted on the absolute necessity of having this technology be adapted to the working environment, both in its digital presentation and in its physical form, in order for it to be easy to access and use. The presence of software meeting the identified criteria enabled them to improve their performance through increased autonomy and their commitment to daily practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".