IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v21y1985i12p1315-1318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Residents' functioning and staff perceptions of 'ease of management' in two types of old peoples' homes

Author

Listed:
  • Proctor, Linda Powell
  • Brook, Peter
  • Blandford, Nicola
  • Billington, Brian

Abstract

Two hundred and forty-five residents in six old peoples' homes of different types were assessed for level of confusion, behavioural disturbance and whether they were most or least difficult to manage. Results show that: 1. (1) Residents in non-unit homes differ from those in unit establishments studied in being significantly more confused and behaviourally disturbed. 2. (2) EMI residents are more confused than non-EMI. Behaviourally, the two groups do not differ significantly. 3. (3) In the non-unit homes only, the cognitive and behavioural measures used in this study clearly distinguish 'difficult' residents from 'easy' ones. The significance of these findings is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Proctor, Linda Powell & Brook, Peter & Blandford, Nicola & Billington, Brian, 1985. "Residents' functioning and staff perceptions of 'ease of management' in two types of old peoples' homes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 21(12), pages 1315-1318, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:21:y:1985:i:12:p:1315-1318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(85)90434-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:21:y:1985:i:12:p:1315-1318. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.