THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CARE TEAMS AND FAMILY CAREGIVERS IN CONGREGATE CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Family/friend caregivers are essential in the quality of care and life of residents living in congregate care (nursing homes and assisted living). However, the COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures substantially changed the way family/friend caregivers could be involved in resident care. It also changed the dynamic of the relationships between care teams and family/friend caregivers. While research has explored these impacts, much of the research has focused on the family/friend caregiver perspective. Our objective was to explore the impact of COVID-19 and related public health measures on these relationships from the perspective of care teams. Using videoconferencing, we conducted 9 focus groups and 2 semi-structured interviews (total of 37 participants) with managers/administrators of 6 congregate care settings and their teams (care aides, nurses, recreation and rehabilitation staff, educators). The themes we identified reflect (1) pressures care teams experienced from family/friend caregivers, (2) conflicts between care teams and family/friend caregivers, (3) support care teams received from family/friend caregivers, and (4) how care teams supported family/friend caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted long-standing relationships between care teams and family/friend caregivers, negatively impacting care teams, family/friend caregivers, and residents. However, care teams also reported encouraging examples of successful collaboration and support from family/friend caregivers. Involving family-friend caregivers in decision making was particularly critical. Learning from these promising practices will be critical to improving preparedness for future public health crises, as well as quality of resident care and life in general.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".