MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1517783694 · doi:10.14574/ojrnhc.v13i2.273

Mentorship in Rural Healthcare Organizations: Challenges and Opportunities

2013· article· en· W1517783694 on OpenAlexaff
Noelle Rohatinsky, Linda Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipHealth careOrganizational culturePublic relationsWork (physics)Rural areaBusinessNursingPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Recruitment to and retention of healthcare professionals in rural workplaces are often difficult due to inadequate resources, limited positions, and facility remoteness. Mentorship of employees can serve as a recruitment and retention strategy in rural organizations. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to explore managers’ perceptions of their roles in creating mentoring cultures, discover the processes in creating a culture of mentoring, and explore the organizational features supporting and inhibiting mentoring cultures. The objectives included: (a) exploring managers’ perceptions of their role in creating a mentoring culture, (b) discovering the processes of creating a culture of mentoring, and (c) exploring the organizational features supporting and inhibiting this process of developing a mentoring culture. The rural-specific findings from the larger study will be discussed.Sample: Twenty-seven front-line nurse managers working in acute care hospitals, long term care, and integrated facilities from both urban and rural locations were interviewed. Twelve participants managed rural facilities and their opinions surrounding rural mentorship strategies and challenges emerged.Method: Data was analyzed using Glaserian Grounded Theory.Findings: Nurse managers discussed the impact of being in a rural area and highlighted the rural-specific considerations for mentoring. They outlined the strategies, challenges, and opportunities for supporting staff mentoring relationships in rural organizations. Participants stated all employees were responsible for mentoring new individuals, regardless of occupation. Managers believed cross-professional mentoring enabled staff to understand team member roles and established collaborative work environments.Conclusions: In order to successfully recruit and retain healthcare employees in rural areas, innovative mentorship initiatives to ensure quality work environments are encouraged. Interprofessional mentorship can assist with the challenges of socializing new employees to rural workplaces by offering a means to encourage collaborative relationships and ultimately foster positive patient outcomes. Key Words: Mentorship, Rural Organizations, Interprofessional, Healthcare

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOnline Journal of Rural Nursing and Health CareSame topicMentoring and Academic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207