Labour saver or building a cohesive interprofessional team? The role of the nurse practitioner within hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse practitioners (NP) are employed within hospital interprofessional (IP) teams in several countries worldwide. There have been some efforts to describe the nature of the NP role within IP teams largely focussing on how the role may augment care processes. Here, using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the perceptions of NPs about their role were compared and integrated into a previously published team perspective as the second phase of a larger study. Seventeen hospital-based (HB) NPs across Ontario, Canada, participated in group and individual interviews. The NP perspective substantiated and expanded the previously reported team perspective, resulting in an IP perspective. The three practice foci illustrating role value meaning of this perspective became: evolve NP role and advance the specialty, focus on team working, and hold patient care together. The IP perspective, juxtaposed with an existing contingency approach, revealed that NPs were promoting IP work, predominantly at the collaboration and teamwork levels, and aiding IP team transitions to appropriate forms of IP work. The practice, "focus on team working"' was strongly related to promoting IP work. The findings were consistent with HB NPs enacting a role in building IP team cohesiveness rather than merely acting as a labour saver. This is the first study to align NP and team understanding of HB NP role value using an IP framework.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".