Development and evaluation of the Feasible and Sustainable Culture Change Model—an online training program designed to increase the provision of person‐centred care practice in residential care homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Interventions aimed at increasing the provision of relational and person‐centred care in residential care homes (RCHs) that do not address contextual and system issues most often fail. Promoting positive change in RCHs requires a multilevel, systems approach. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the online Feasible and Sustainable Culture Change Model (FASCCI) model training program on influencing both the implementation and outcomes of culture change initiatives aimed at increasing the provision of person‐centred care practices during ‘move‐in day’ for newly admitted residents. Methods Using principles consistent with Cooperative Participatory Action Research (CPAR), we collected qualitative and quantitative data to examine the processes and outcomes associated with using the online FASCCI training program to implement changes in ‘move‐in day’ care practice in two RCHs. Surveys—including likert scales (1 = strongly disagree‐ 5 = strongly agree) and open‐ended questions, were used to evaluate the staffs’ (n = 24) perceptions of the online training modules. Interviews with the Process Improvement Team leaders (n = 2) were conducted to examine treatment fidelity and ascertain their perceptions regarding the intervention processes. Practice change outcomes were determined based on detailed descriptions and observations of the move‐in practices pre‐intervention and comparing these to the move‐in practices following the intervention. Results Staff members indicated they strongly agreed that the online training modules were “useful both personally and professionally” (M = 5.0) and that they “were able to use the skills they learned in their care practice” (M = 4.7). Analysis of data from qualitative interviews demonstrated that use of the online FASCCI model training program resulted in improved team building, communication, and collaborative decision‐making. Multiple changes to care practices occurred, including but not limited to, the creation and implementation of a “Move In Ambassador”, creating an effective process for ‘personal device labelling’ (i.e., walkers), and creating and distributing “Isolation Bags’—bags with personalized, creative activities for the residents to engage with during 2‐week isolation periods (due to the pandemic) at move‐in. Conclusions This study offers evidence that the online FASCCI model training program provides a promising approach for improving the provision of relationship‐centred move‐in practices in LTC homes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".