The experience and views of mental health nurses regarding nursing care delivery in an integrated, inpatient setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive and effective consumer outcomes hinge on having in place optimal models of nursing care delivery. The aim of this study was to ascertain the experience and views of mental health nurses, working in hospitals in an area mental health service, regarding nursing care delivery in those settings. Surveys (n = 250) were sent to all mental health nurses working in inpatient settings and 118 (47%) were returned. Results showed that the quality of nursing care achieved high ratings (by 87%), and that two-thirds of respondents were proud to be a mental health nurse and would choose to be a mental health nurse again. Similarly, the majority (71%) would recommend mental health nursing to others. Concern was, however, expressed about the continuity and consistency of nursing work and information technology resources. Nurses with community experiences rated the importance of the following items, or their confidence, higher than those without previous community placements: the importance of interdisciplinary teamwork; the importance of participating in case review; the importance of collaborating with community staff; confidence in performing mental state examinations; and confidence in collaborating with community staff, suggesting that this placement had positive effects on acute care nursing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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, 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".