MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Boundary work and the introduction of acute care nurse practitioners in healthcare teams

2011· article· en· W1512100281 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Health Services Research Foundation
KeywordsAcute careNursingTeamworkHealth careScope of practiceProfessional boundariesInterpersonal communicationMedicineWork (physics)District nurseScope (computer science)Psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it