Perspectives and experiences of compassion in long-term care facilities within Canada: a qualitative study of patients, family members and health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction This paper details a subset of the findings from a participatory action research project exploring a palliative intervention in long-term care sites across Canada. The findings presented in this paper relate to understanding compassion within the context of a palliative approach to long-term care. Methods Findings presented are drawn from qualitative interviews and focus groups with residents, family members, healthcare providers, and managers from 4 long-term care sites across 4 provinces in Canada. In total, there were 117 individuals (20 residents, 16 family members, 72 healthcare providers, and 9 managers) who participated in one of 19 focus groups. Data was analyzed by multiple members of the research team in accordance with thematic analysis. Individual concepts were organized into themes across the different focus groups and the results were used to build a conceptual understanding of compassion within Long Term Care . Findings Two themes, each comprised of 5 sub-themes, emerged from the data. The first theme 'Conceptualizing Compassion in Long-Term Care generated a multidimensional understanding of compassion that was congruent with previous theoretical models. 'Organizational Compassion: resources and staffing', the second major theme, focused on the operationalization of compassion within the practice setting and organizational culture. Organizational Compassion subthemes focused on how compassion could support staff to enact care for the residents, the families, one another, and at times, recognizing their pain and supporting it through grief and mourning. Conclusions Results suggest that compassion is an essential part of care and relationships within long-term care, though it is shaped by personal and professional relational aspects of care and bound by organizational and systemic issues. Findings suggest that compassion may be an under-recognised, but essential element in meeting the promise of person-centred care within long-term care environments.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".