Introducing a nurse practitioner: experiences in a rural Alberta family practice clinic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on the experiences of introducing a nurse practitioner (NP) into a rural physicians' clinic in Taber, Alberta. DESIGN: Case study, grounded theory qualitative approach. SETTING: A rural community-based family practice in Taber, Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty relevant stakeholders, including physicians, office staff, Regional Health Authority health professionals and community members. METHOD: Open-ended interviews supplemented with a patient survey, billing and work time records. MAIN FINDINGS: Successful introduction of the NP in the Taber clinic relied on: 1) flexibility in the first stages of developing the role; 2) strong connections to key individuals outside the clinic to maintain integration with the community; 3) support and guidance provided by a mentor group who assisted in developing positive working relationships; and 4) cost sharing (matched with benefits) by the clinic and provincial health system for sustainability of the position. CONCLUSIONS: The NP role in Taber was viewed positively by clinic physicians and other stakeholders because of high patient satisfaction with the NP, billing potential that surpassed salary costs, and increased integration of physician services with RHA initiatives.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".