Examining Policy Objectives and Implementation in the Home Care Program in Winnipeg, Manitoba: An Autoethnographic Account from a Home Support Worker.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to examine the home care program in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the methods employed by agencies in the implementation of the policy, and its impact on beneficiaries of the program. The mandate of the home care program is twofold: 1) to provide services to persons assessed as having inadequate informal resources to return home from hospital or to remain in the community, and 2) to assess and place individuals in long-term care facilities if and when home care services cannot maintain them safely and/or economically at home and to provide them with home care services until they are placed (Roos et al., 2001). Home care can mean different things to different people. Home care is a general term used to reflect a wide range of social, medical, and non-medical support services that are conducted for purposes of enabling compromised individuals to live safely and independently in their communities (Auditor General of Manitoba, 2015). I choose this topic because, having worked for more than four years as a home support worker with multiple agencies in Winnipeg, my goal in this project is to connect my experience and give an accurate and interesting account of the Home Care Policy and how it is implemented on the ground. I focus on the practices, procedures, and methods employed by the various home care agencies in Winnipeg in implementing the policy (the home care). I also examine other home care modules and point out some practices and procedures elsewhere that can be incorporated into the home care program in Manitoba to make it even better. As a support worker, I look at provisions in the policy that are properly followed and those that are not and how this impacts the beneficiaries of the program. By using an autoethnographic approach and reflecting on my own experience and observations, this study provides first-hand information on the home care culture in Manitoba, its impact on the beneficiaries of the program, and suggestions of possible ways of improving upon the program.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".