Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Ontario long-term care (LTC) settings, person-centred care (PCC) is promoted by government legislation, accreditation organizations and professional practice guidelines aiming to integrate this approach. However, there is currently no standardized approach to providing PCC in LTC. The purpose of this study was to examine public policies on PCC in Ontario and explore how they are interpreted and translated into practice in LTC. A qualitative case study approach was used to examine the perspectives of key stakeholders at one LTC facility in Ontario. Focus groups were conducted with residents, family members, direct care providers and managers. Through content analysis, findings were organized into four categories showcasing both overlapping and differential understandings of PCC in practice: 1) conceptualization, 2) barriers, 3) facilitators, and 4) evaluation. Identified tensions between policy and the delivery of PCC highlight systemic issues that must be addressed to enable equitable person-centred LTC rooted in resident-identified priorities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".