Staff-Family Communication Methods in Long-Term Care Homes: An Integrative Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Communication methods have been trialled to promote staff-family relations and facilitate person-centred care for residents living in long-term care homes. A review and synthesis of the common methods will inform the development of staff-family communication methods, policy and best practice guidelines. Objectives: 1) synthesise and summarise common communication methods, and types(s) of delivery, used for staff-family communication in long-term care homes; and 2) identify any challenges that impacted the implementation of the communication method(s). Methods: An integrative review was employed to incorporate papers with diverse research designs. It involved a comprehensive database and grey literature search, and study selection based on inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were extracted, coded and categorised by common communication method, delivery type(s) and challenges; studies were assessed for quality. Findings: A total of 3,183 potential papers were retrieved from seven international databases. Twenty-four original papers from six countries meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed and assessed for quality (M = 30; SD = 3.8). Common communication methods (structured education, meetings and takeaway resources) and challenges to implementation (confusion, misunderstanding and disagreement; lack of time; and technological difficulties) were identified and summarised. Limitations: The exclusion of papers published more than 20 years ago, geographical concentration of studies in high-income countries, and absence of stakeholder consultation may limit the generalisability and depth of the findings. Implications: Staff professional development and education, technology training and support, and accessibility of information in pamphlets and resources for family are crucial for facilitating staff-family communication in long-term care 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it