Staff perspectives on the role of physical environment in long-term care facilities on dementia care in Canada and Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore staff perspectives of the physical environment in supporting their care practices for residents living with dementia in Canadian and Swedish long-term care facilities. DESIGN: An exploratory, descriptive, qualitative research design based on focus groups was used. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 24 staff members who worked closely with the residents such as nurses or care aides participated in the focus group interviews from four facilities, two in Sweden and two in Canada. MEASUREMENTS: Focus group interview was held at each selected care facility once and a total of four times were conducted. Broad questions were asked about the effect of physical environment on care practice, job satisfaction, and interaction with residents. Data were analyzed by thematic analysis. FINDINGS: This study identified three environmental themes that have substantial effect on the social interaction and care practice: (i) design ambience enables and limits social and care interaction, (ii) space arrangements facilitate and hinder the effectiveness of care delivery, and (iii) sensory stimuli have direct impact on residents. The findings demonstrate that well-designed environment qualities such as homelike ambience, an open layout, and stimulating courtyard positively stimulate the emotion of staff as well as residents, which also leads to build trust and relationship and to increase job satisfaction. The study found that the appropriate level of sound or familiar music for residents with dementia is a positive stimulus. When the staff felt comfortable and supported by good care unit's ambience, they can be motivated to care for their residents, leading to better care practices. The study also found that the closed floor plan in an institutional setting could increase staff fatigue by obstructing the view of residents' behaviors and movement and by increasing walking loads. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complexities of how care was organized and influenced by the physical environment of the setting. The variations in the physical environmental characteristics and quality of care suggest the value of comparative research in identifying and exploring the possible causes and consequences. Future development in long-term care facilities requires a better understanding of staff experiences and staff involvement in the physical design of care settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".