Nurses and English primary care groups: their experiences and perceived influence on policy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS OF THE STUDY: To investigate the experiences and perceived influence of nurses serving on English primary care group boards. BACKGROUND: The development of the nursing workforce and nursing services in primary care have been piecemeal and nurses have not always contributed to policy development. The recent establishment of primary care groups (PCGs) in the United Kingdom (UK) potentially offers nurses the opportunity to take a concerted and strategic role in developing professional roles and planning service developments. RESEARCH METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study of a 15% random sample of English primary care groups, nurse board members were surveyed in the winter of 1999. One hundred and forty-four nurses were invited to return self-completion questionnaires. RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were returned by 106 of those invited to participate (73%). Respondents reported that combining their usual work with their role in the PCG was frequently difficult. Only 26% perceived that they had been well prepared for their new role. Compared with other board members [for example, general practitioners (GPs)], nurses perceived that their own influence was limited, with only a quarter rating the influence of nurses on decision-making as great. Most of the sample were feeding back information to other primary care and community nurses working in the locality and 52% rated communication with this wider constituency as good or better. Nurse board members were enthusiastic about their role and optimistic about the positive future impact of PCGs on health. CONCLUSIONS: PCGs are still at a relatively early stage in their development. It is still too early to assess their impact on nurses working in primary care and community settings. Board membership offers nurses a voice in local health policy development.
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 | 0.000 | 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".