Report on fraying resilience among the Ontario Registered Practical Nurse Workforce in long‐term care homes during <scp>COVID</scp>‐19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Registered Practical Nurses (RPNs) are frontline healthcare providers in Ontario long-term care (LTC) homes. Throughout COVID-19, RPNs working in LTC homes experienced prolonged lockdowns, challenging working conditions, and inadequate resource allocation. This study aimed to describe the personal and professional resilience of RPNs working in LTC during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: An open cross-sectional online survey containing the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Resilience at Work Scale®, and Resilience at Work Team Scale®. METHODS: The survey was distributed by the RPN Association of Ontario (WeRPN) to approximately 5000 registered members working in Ontario LTC homes. RESULTS: A total of 434 respondents participated in the survey (completion rate = 88.0%). Study respondents scored low on measures of resilience and reported extreme levels of job (54.5%) and personal (37.8%) stress. Resources to support self-care and work-life balance, build capacity for team-based care practice(s) are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".