Nurse practitioners’ attitudes to nutritional challenges dealing with the patients’ nutritional needs and ability to care for themselves in a fast track program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Nutrition plays an important role to the success of fast track programs, but under nutrition are still reported. Nutritional care seems to be a low priority among nurses even though it is well-known that insufficient nutrition has severe consequences for the patients. The aim is to report to what extent a training program has made Nutritional Nurse Practitioners aware of the nutritional care for short-term hospitalized patients, and how they deal with patients’ nutritional needs and ability to provide self-care in the context of a fast track program. Methods : Deductive content analysis was used to analyse data from four focus group interviews. Sixteen Nutritional Nurse Practitioners from either medical or surgery wards participated. The Nutritional Nurse Practitioners were inter- viewed twice. The interviews were recorded and verbally transcribed. Results: In the Nutritional Nurse Practitioners’ opinion nutritional care is as important as any other treatment. Nutritional care should be planned with the patients to stimulate the patient to be active during admission and after discharges. Therefore, information and guidance to the patients and their relatives about nutrition is essential. It seems to be difficult for the Nutritional Nurse Practitioners to focus on nutritional care when it comes to everyday. Firstly due to time constraints and secondly higher priority is given to tasks delegated by the physician. Conclusions: Despite Nutritional Nurse Practitioners are responsible for nutritional care and possess knowledge and skills to care for patients at nutritional risk, they find it challenging to handle nutritional problems. They do not explicitly pay attention to patients on fast track programs, but give higher priority to tasks delegated by the physician. This priority and the fact that Nutritional Nurse Practitioners find it difficult to exemplify evidence-based nursing interventions for specific nutritional problems, makes the nursing profession imperceptible to patients, relatives and healthcare professionals as a resource within its own area of responsibility.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".