“All behaviour has meaning”: A qualitative exploration of dementia training of healthcare assistant students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: Nurses face a high level of risk of violence compared with other workers, with higher frequency towards those who are younger and less experienced. Risk of violence is similar for health care aides, and nursing students, with health care aides experiencing the highest rate of injury because much of their work and clinical practice is in long-term care settings where many residents are at risk for challenging behaviours due to cognitive changes. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the effects Gentle Persuasive Approaches© (GPA) training had on health care assistant students’ knowledge and ability to care for patients who have the potential for responsive behaviours. GPA is a training program recognized in Canada as best practice in the management of responsive behaviours of patients, providing learners with the skills to interact and intervene to diffuse escalating care situations. Methodology: A mixed-methods approach with a quasi-experimental, repeated measures design was used. Health care assistant (HCA) students received GPA training by certified faculty coaches prior to their clinical practice. Repeated measure questionnaires were administered pre-GPA, post-GPA, and post-clinical practice. Focus groups allowed students to reflect on how GPA prepared them for managing responsive behaviours post-clinical practice. Findings: The results demonstrate the effectiveness of offering evidence-based dementia training program while students are still in their educational program to better prepare them to provide person-centred care and keep themselves and their patients safe.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".