Examining the relationship between patient-centred care and outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: to examine the extent to which staff nurses provided patient-centred care (PCC), as perceived by staff nurses and patients, and to explore the relationships between implementation of PCC and patient outcomes. DESIGN: A descriptive correlational design with repeated measures was used. Descriptive statistics, correlations and t-tests were calculated. METHODS: Data were collected from 63 nurses and 44 patients admitted to cardiology, neurology/neurosurgery and orthopedic units. Nurses' and patients' perception of implementation of dimensions of PCC, and patient outcomes were measured with validated instruments. FINDINGS: Overall, nurses and patients reported implementation of PCC to a moderate extent. Provision of different aspects of PCC was associated with high levels of patient self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of PCC is expected to improve patient outcome by increasing patient self-care ability and improving satisfaction with care and quality of life. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings will guide further improvement in the implementation of PCC to continuously enhance quality of nursing care, the patients' hospital experience and readiness for discharge.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".