Boundary work and the introduction of acute care nurse practitioners in healthcare teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article is a report of a study of boundary work following the introduction of an acute care nurse practitioner role in healthcare teams. BACKGROUND: Acute care nurse practitioners enacting their roles in healthcare teams have faced a number of challenges including a mix of positive and negative views of the acute care nurse practitioner role from healthcare team members and acute care nurse practitioner roles crossing the boundaries between the medical and nursing professions. Understanding the process by which the boundaries between professions changed following the introduction of an acute care nurse practitioner role was important since this could affect scope of practice and the team's ability to give patient care. METHODS: The study was conducted in two university-affiliated teaching hospitals in Canada. A descriptive multiple case study design was used. Data were collected from March to May 2009. RESULTS: Participants (N = 59) described boundary work as a process that included: (1) creating space; (2) loss of a valued function; (3) trust; (4) interpersonal dynamics; and (5) time. The development of trust among team members was essential. The co-location of team members working on common projects, and medical and nursing leadership facilitated boundary work. CONCLUSION: The micro-level processes of boundary work in healthcare teams have important implications for the development of full scope of practice for acute care nurse practitioners, effective inter-professional teamwork and the integration of new roles in healthcare systems. Future research needs to be undertaken in different contexts, and with patients and families.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
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 | 0.024 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".