The Integration of Long-Term Care and Personal Support Worker Education: Evaluation of a Living Classroom Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shortage of Personal Support Workers (PSW) to meet the needs of residents in long-term care (LTC) homes has been well documented, and the issue has been made more acute in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The living classroom (LC) has been implemented as one approach to addressing the need to train PSWs and attract them to the sector. A mixed-methods program evaluation of a LC program was undertaken. Surveys were carried out with students during and at the end of the program. Focus groups and individual interviews were carried out with staff, residents, and students. Program implementation was successful, and several program graduates were employed in the LTC home upon graduation. Key stakeholders were satisfied with the program, and students had improved attitudes toward the LTC sector. Opportunities for improvement were noted and addressed. The LC model is an approach that can be used by LTC homes and their educational partners to deliver high quality, integrated PSW programs. It can be used to help address the serious staffing shortages in the LTC sector.
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 | 0.001 | 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".