N-ECCO survey results of nursing practice in caring for patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis in Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The difference in nursing roles when caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease varies across Europe with different levels of responsibility. This might vary widely from country to country and even hospital to hospital depending on the local requirements of the patients and the gastroenterology team. This survey was developed to assess the current nursing practice across Europe. METHODS: A total of 220 nursing delegates who attended the N-ECCO Meeting and School in 2012 were invited to complete a survey. The survey consisted of 11 questions about the role and responsibility of nurses in the care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. RESULTS: Of the 220 European nurses, 192 responded (87%). A majority (61%) came from 5 European countries, most were between 30 and 50 years old, 73% worked in public hospitals and 68% were involved in adult care. The level of education varied equally between certificate level, degree level, diploma level and masters' level. The nurses' level of experience, above that of the level of education, was the main factor in determining whether to offer advice or not to the patient, independent of a doctor (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey has provided an understanding of the nursing role in the care of patients with IBD across Europe as well as Australia, Canada and Israel. It demonstrates that the role of nurses in IBD exists in various settings within hospital care, providing complex management and autonomous nursing care in a range of services to a significant number of patients with IBD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".