Conceptual framework of acute care nurse practitioner role enactment, boundary work, and perceptions of team effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This article describes a new conceptual framework for acute care nurse practitioner role enactment, boundary work and perceptions of team effectiveness. BACKGROUND: Acute care nurse practitioners contribute positively to patient care by enacting an expanded scope of practise. Researchers have found both positive and negative reactions to the introduction of acute care nurse practitioners in healthcare teams. The process of role enactment, shifting role boundaries, and perceptions of team effectiveness has been studied disparately. A framework linking team structures and processes to desirable outcomes is needed. DATA SOURCES: Literature was obtained by searching CINAHL, PsycInfo, MedLine, PubMed, British Nursing Index, Cochrane Library, JSTOR Archive, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from 1985-2010. A descriptive multiple-case study was completed from March 2009-May 2009. DISCUSSION: A new conceptual framework describing how role enactment and boundary work affect perceptions of team effectiveness was developed by combining theoretical and empirical sources. The framework proposes proximal indicators used by team members to assess their team's performance. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The framework identifies the inter-related dimensions and concepts that different stakeholders need to consider when introducing nurse practitioners in healthcare teams. Further study is needed to identify team-level outcomes that reflect the contributions of all providers to quality patient care, and explore the patients' and families' perceptions of team effectiveness following the introduction of acute care nurse practitioners. CONCLUSION: The new framework can guide decision-making and research related to the structures, processes, and outcomes of nurse practitioner roles in healthcare teams.
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 | no category 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 | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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, 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".