MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019748294 · doi:10.1258/jtt.2011.101204

Mobile computing and the quality of home care nursing practice

2011· article· en· W2019748294 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guy Paré, Claude Sicotte, Marie-Pierre Moreault, Placide Poba‐Nzaou, Georgette Nahas, Mathieu Templier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Telemedicine and Telecare · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingMedicineQuality (philosophy)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effects of the introduction of mobile computing on the quality of home care nursing practice in Québec. The software, which structured and organized the nursing activities in patients' homes, was installed sequentially in nine community health centres. The completeness of the nursing notes was compared in 77 paper records (pre-implementation) and 73 electronic records (post-implementation). Overall, the introduction of the software was associated with an improvement in the completeness of the nursing notes. All 137 nurse users were asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A total of 101 completed questionnaires were returned (74% response rate). Overall, the nurses reported a very high level of satisfaction with the quality of clinical information collected. A total of 57 semi-structured interviews were conducted and most nurses believed that the new software represented a user-friendly tool with a clear and understandable structure. A postal questionnaire was sent to approximately 1240 patients. A total of 223 patients returned the questionnaire (approximately 18% response rate). Overall, patients felt that the use of mobile computing during home visits allowed nurses to manage their health condition better and, hence, provide superior care services. The use of mobile computing had positive and significant effects on the quality of care provided by home nurses.

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 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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Telemedicine and TelecareSame topicNursing Diagnosis and DocumentationFrench-language works237,207