MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992461324 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2004.16268

Retaining and Transferring Nursing Knowledge through a Hospital Internship Program

2004· article· en· W1992461324 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mary Murphy, Patricia Petryshen, Nancy Read

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipHealth careAsset (computer security)NursingPsychologyProfessional developmentNursing shortageMedical educationMedicineNurse educationPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In healthcare, organizations recognize that human capital is their most valuable asset. The importance of investing in knowledge workers is imperative given the current and future shortage of health professionals. Knowledge acquisition occurs through continuous learning and the transfer of information from those who are highly experienced to those who are less qualified. At St. Michael's Hospital, two innovative and unique programs were created for the transfer of knowledge. The first was a nurse fellowship program that enabled experienced nurses to spend two to three months learning new skills to advance clinical practice. The second was a nurse internship program in which new graduates spend three to four months in their area of hire to enhance clinical practice through skill development and prioritization of patient care needs. This paper describes both programs and presents an evaluation of the new-graduate internship program as an opportunity for professional development and career enhancement For nurse interns, the program promotes self-esteem and professional confidence, improves job satisfaction and rewards nurses for their contribution. For nurse preceptors, the program provides job enrichment, experience in teaching and recognition by the organization and peers that they are knowledge experts. In healthcare, organizations have come to acknowledge that their most valuable asset is human capital, in particular, knowledge workers (Horibe 1999). Knowledge workers contribute a composite of information, intellectual property and experience (Horibe 1999), acquired by study, investigation, observation or practice (Webster's Dictionary 1989). Investing in knowledge workers is investing in the future. In this regard, organizations have implemented recruitment and retention strategies to attract, retain and advance the highest calibre of health professional. Knowledge workers contribute to an organization through their ideas, analyses of complex situations and sound judgment in decision-making (Horibe 1999). They further develop these skills over the course of their career through continuous learning. This paper will focus on the importance of investing in nurses as knowledge workers. In particular, given the shortage of nurses and the reality that 25% of today's nurses can retire over the next 10 years (CNA 2001), it is imperative that knowledge transfer occur from highly experienced to less experienced nurses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.305
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207