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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".