Residential Aged Care Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Staff Survey on Impact and Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on staff in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). A hardcopy, voluntary, anonymous survey was circulated to local RACFs (June–July 2020), exploring challenges, staffing effects, mood within RACFs, and staff perceptions of supports. Overall, 105 staff members responded, which were mainly nursing personnel (67.6%) and owners/managers (10.5%). Seventy percent believed they were equipped to handle patients with COVID-19. One quarter reported personal protective equipment shortages. Respondents reported pressures to accept patients with COVID-19 from hospitals and/or keep residents in the RACF. One third reported staff “calling in sick” related to COVID-19/quarantine. Common compensatory strategies included increasing part-time workers' hours. Reported mood was largely positive. Most (86.4%) respondents felt supported by general practitioner and local geriatric outreach services. Opportunities to best support RACF staff require further research and dialogue. [ Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49 (3), 13–17.]
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".