COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care: An international perspective for policy considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper identifies key factors rooted in the systemic failings of the long-term care sector amongst four high income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goal is to offer practice and policy solutions to prevent future tragedies. Based on data from Australia, Canada, Spain and the United States, the findings support evidence-based recommendations at macro, meso and micro levels of practice and policy intervention. Key macro recommendations include improving funding, transparency, accountability and health system integration; and promoting not-for-profit and government-run long-term care facilities. The meso recommendation involves moving from warehouses to "green houses." The micro recommendations emphasize mandating recommended staffing levels and skill mix; providing infection prevention and control training; establishing well-being and mental health supports for residents and staff; building evidence-based practice cultures; ensuring ongoing education for staff and nursing students; and fully integrating care partners, such as families or friends, into the healthcare team. Enacting these recommendations will improve residents' safety and quality of life, families' peace of mind, and staff retention and work satisfaction.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".