Family physician/nurse practitioner: stories of collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".