MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Family physician/nurse practitioner: stories of collaboration

2006· article· en· W2001824523 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingScope of practiceCLARITYNarrativeHealth careQualitative researchMedicinePromotion (chess)PsychologyMedical educationFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: This paper presents the experiences of nurse practitioners and family physicians working in collaborative practice at four Canadian rural primary care agencies. It focuses on the qualitative segment of a larger study examining the impact of an educational intervention on interprofessional practice. BACKGROUND: Growing awareness of the importance of health promotion and disease prevention, the increased complexity of community-based care, and the need to use scarce human healthcare resources, especially family physicians, far more efficiently and effectively, have resulted in increased emphasis on primary healthcare renewal in Canada. Key to primary healthcare renewal is care delivery through interdisciplinary teams that include nurse practitioners. METHODS: Narrative analysis, a form of interpretive analysis that respects the integrity of the stories told by participants, was chosen as the strategy to examine the narrative data gathered in two sets of interviews with the nurse practitioners and family physicians. The study was undertaken during 2000. RESULTS: Thirteen family physicians and five nurse practitioners with diverse educational backgrounds and varied experience with collaboration participated in the qualitative component of the study. A number of issues related to working in a shared practice were identified in nurse practitioner and family physician interviews across the research sites. The themes identified in participants' stories included issues related to the scope of practice, emphasizing the importance of role clarity and trust, the ideological difference regarding disease prevention and health promotion, differences in perceptions about the operation of collaborative practice, and the understanding that collaborative relationships evolve. CONCLUSIONS: The placement of nurse practitioners and family physicians in a common clinical practice without some form of orientation process does not produce collaborative practice. Educational strategies related to role expectations are necessary to facilitate the development of care delivery partnerships characterized by interdependent practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.405 · 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