Safety Practices in Long Term Care Facilities: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Safety Practices in Long Term Care Facilities: A Review of the Literature Background: Canada’s aging population and the shortage of long-term care (LTC) facilities is creating a growing concern for older adults and their families. This is placing additional stress and demand on the already resource-constrained healthcare system, including shortages of care staff/support workers. The shortage of care staff in LTC facilities has grave impact on the safety and quality of care that residents receive. Common safety concerns in LTC facilities include risks for falls, medication errors, nosocomial infections, and pressure ulcers. Purpose: The purpose of this literature review is to explore studies that have been conducted on the relationship between safety practices and resident outcomes in LTC facilities in North America. Method: A literature search was conducted using databases such as CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMeb, Scholars Portal, and Google Scholar. Search terms included “patient safety” or “staff shortages” and “long term care” or “nursing homes”. Inclusion criteria included North American literature written in English and published in 2008-2018. Using the search terms listed, the databases yielded 32 results. After reviewing the articles, 15 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the purposes of this literature review. The literature identified that care provider staffing is associated with quality of care in LTC facilities. The literature also suggested the following safety practices; increased staffing, education and training for care providers, improved communication, maintaining independence in residents, and teamwork strategies. Summary: LTC facilities are charged with ensuring the safety of their residents in their facilities, and therefore, every effort must be made to address safety issues in order to improve the quality of care and quality of life of residents. Key terms: patient safety, patient outcomes, long-term care facilities, care staff, personal support workers, staff shortages
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".