Staff Engagement for Practice Change in Long-Term Care: Evaluating the Feasible and Sustainable Culture Change Initiative (FASCCI) Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Context:</strong> Interventions aimed at increasing the provision of person-centred care in long-term care (LTC) homes, that do not address contextual and system issues, most often fail. Promoting positive change in LTC homes requires requires a multilevel, systems approach. <strong>Objectives:</strong> Evaluate the effectiveness of the Feasible and Sustainable Culture Change Initiative (FASCCI) model for improving the provision of person-centred mealtime practices in a LTC home. <strong>Methods:</strong> A single-group, time series design was used to assess the impact of the FASCCI model for change on outcome measures across four time periods (pre-intervention, 2-month, 4-month and 6-month follow-up). Differences in scores from baseline were assessed utilizing Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Interviews (n = 21) were also conducted to examine treatment fidelity and to ascertain the study participants’ perceptions of the process for making improvements using the FASCCI model. <strong>Findings:</strong> We observed increases in care staff’s capacity to consistently provide relational and person-centred care during mealtimes. Mealtime environment scores started increasing immediately following the intervention, with statistically significant improvements in all mealtime environment scales by six-months, including: the physical environment (W = 55.00, p = 0.008); social environment (W = 55.00, p = 0.008); relationship-centred care (W = 45.00, p = 0.014); and overall quality of dining environment (W = 55.00, p = 0.010). Analysis of data from qualitative interviews demonstrated that use of the FASCCI model resulted in improved team leadership, communication, and collaborative decision-making. <strong>Limitations:</strong> Generalizability is limited due to the small sample size and use of convenience sampling methods. <strong>Implications:</strong> Outcomes indicate that the FASCCI model seems promising in its ability to improve PCC mealtime practices in LTC homes and is worthy of a larger scale study. The results further demonstrate the value of supportive team environments in quality dementia 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 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 | 0.063 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".