The Culture Change Movement among Nursing Homes: Social Workers/Health Care Professionals Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the experience of social workers and other health care professionals that are working in facilities that are or have implemented the Culture Change Movement (CCM) and to determine its impact on older adults and those working with them. This qualitative research study examines social workers and other health care professionals’ perspectives on the implementation of the CCM in nursing home settings. Six licensed social workers and two registered nurses were interviewed for this study from various surrounding nursing homes that are or have implemented the CCM. A semi-structured interview was conducted with each participate to learn more about the CCM and its effects on the nursing home environment. The interviews were conducted in private spaces to ensure confidentiality for each participant. The interview was recorded, transcribed, read and coded to determine themes throughout the interview. Upon completion of the interview and transcription, a reliability check was completed with another academic colleague. The emerging themes from the interviews were as follows: transitioning from an institutionalized setting to a more home-like environment, giving residents more choices, and positive feedback from residents, families and staff. These findings support the literature. Future research in this area will only continue to provide direction to nursing facilities that are implementing the CCM and will help inform them of the impacts of the CCM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".