The impact of COVID-19 on relationships between family/friend caregivers and care staff in continuing care facilities: a qualitative descriptive analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic and related public health measures added a new dynamic to the relationship between caregivers and care staff in congregate care settings. While both caregivers and staff play an important role in resident quality of life and care, it is common for conflict to exist between them. These issues were amplified by pandemic restrictions, impacting not only caregivers and care staff, but also residents. While research has explored the relationship between caregivers and care staff in long-term care and assisted living homes, much of the research has focused on the caregiver perspective. Our objective was to explore the impact of COVID-19-related public health measures on caregiver-staff relationships from the perspective of staff in long-term care and assisted living homes. Methods We conducted 9 focus groups and 2 semi-structured interviews via videoconference. Results We identified four themes related to caregiver-staff relationships: (1) pressure from caregivers, (2) caregiver-staff conflict, (3) support from caregivers, and (4) staff supporting caregivers. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted long-standing relationships between caregivers and care staff, negatively impacting care staff, caregivers, and residents. However, staff also reported encouraging examples of successful collaboration and support from caregivers. 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".