Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of homelikeness from the perspective of family members and friends of nursing home residents across different models of nursing homes.

This mixed-methods study examined survey data collected from 397 family members and friends of residents living in 23 nursing homes representing three models of care (traditional, new augmented, and full scope). Participants completed a homelikeness scale and a measure of the importance of nursing home spaces to family members and friends. This study also involved conducting three focus groups with 20 family members and friends to provide further insights into the findings.

Analysis of survey data indicated quite high levels of homelikeness overall. Significant differences did emerge between traditional model nursing homes compared to new full-scope and new augmented models for all items in the homelikeness scale and for many items about nursing home spaces. Qualitative results provided insights into how homelikeness can be fostered through public and private spaces and through care and relationships.

As this study was conducted in one Canadian province, the results may not be applicable to other geographic areas. In addition, there are limitations in survey response rate.

Homelikeness can be supported across models of care by fostering relationships between residents and staff, ensuring that that family and friends feel welcome, and creating public and private physical spaces that are conducive to new and ongoing relationships.

The results provide evidence to nursing home decision makers about how to foster a homelike environment in various models of nursing homes.

In this chapter we explore some of the intriguing questions raised by contaminated communities. Is there a connection between exposure to environmental hazards and psychological distress? If yes, how best can it be measured? What kinds of psychological problems are aggravated by this kind of life stress? How do we know that victims are truly experiencing increased problems such as anxiety, depression and fears about their health?

The British Food Journal is in no way concerned with politics, and as it would appear that the propositions put forward by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN are commonly regarded as constituting matter for political controversy instead of being looked upon as subjects for serious investigation and discussion entirely outside the field of politics, it would be an undesirable course and one likely to be misunderstood and, no doubt, misrepresented, were we to refer to the great question which is now before the country without plainly indicating at the outset that we have no intention of supporting or opposing any political party or any section of politicians. We believe Mr. CHAMBERLAIN'S suggestion that the subjects which he has brought forward should be discussed on a higher plane than on the muddy plane of party politics was a reasonable and proper suggestion which all men of sense who are not blinded by political bias should applaud and endeavour to adopt. We do not mean to say that problems of so complicated a character are capable of being accurately solved, in the present state of knowledge, by scientific methods other than actual experiment. They certainly cannot be solved by abstract discussions of a pseudo‐scientific character. The factors which enter into the problems of political economy are so numerous, so complex, and so little understood, that to endeavour to argue even on the basis of what are alleged by political economists to be well‐ascertained facts in the so‐called “dismal science” is to lay oneself open to the charge of theorising from insufficient data. HERBERT SPENCER has lucidly demonstrated the universality of this scientific crime. On comparatively simple subjects, in regard to which a man has no special knowledge, he will, if possessed of the quality known as common sense, generally decline to deliver oracular opinions; but, let a subject be sufficiently complex and let the data relating to it be few, obscure, and uncertain, then decisive opinions will be delivered by all and sundry,—and the more profound the ignorance the more decisive will be the expression of opinion.

There is no argument among serious researchers that a mongoloid stock first colonized the New World from Asia. Nor is there controversy about the fact that these continental pioneers used the Bering Land Bridge that then connected the Asian Far East with Alaska.– Gerald F. Shields, et al.American Journal of Genetics (1992)