The value of the hospital-based nurse practitioner role: development of a team perspective framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need to understand nurse practitioner (NP) interprofessional practice within hospital teams to inform effective role integration and evolution. To begin this understanding a supplementary analysis of 30 hospital team member focus groups was carried out using constructivist grounded theory methodology. This conceptual rendering of the team members' shared perspective of NP actions provides insight into the meaning and importance of the NP role. Participants emphasized three hospital-based (HB) NP practice foci as the meaning of role value; easing others' workload, holding patient care together and evolving practice. Trust emerged as a pre-requisite condition for HB NP role efficacy. A team member perspective framework of HB NP practice is presented as the first stage in developing a model of HB NP interprofessional practice within hospitals. The framework provides multiple perspectives to the meaning and value of the HB NP role beyond basic role description. The framework may be used by healthcare professionals, operational leaders, academia and HB NPs to enhance role respect and understanding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".