Effective Retention Strategies for Midcareer Critical Care Nurses
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Midcareer nurses continue to be overlooked in the current nursing shortage that is amplified in intensive care units (ICUs) requiring greater numbers of specialized nurses. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to discover what midcareer critical care nurses perceive would be effective retention strategies. METHODS: As a combination of both qualitative and quantitative approaches, Q methodology was used to allow for the development of innovative strategies as well as to provide an understanding of a population of viewpoints and preferences that can guide retention efforts. Forty ICU nurses between the ages of 25 and 44 years from within a Canadian academic health science corporation completed a 45-item Q sort representing their ideas for increasing staff retention. Data were analyzed using centroid factor extraction and varimax rotation in PQMethod version 2.11. RESULTS: Four viewpoints emerged: The Healthy Workplace and Respect Seeker, The Flexibility and Reward Seeker, The Professional Development and Teamwork Seeker, and The Lifestyle Seeker. Correlations between the factors were appropriately weak, with seemingly distinct demographics characterizing each. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest a possible association between perceptions and both years of nursing experience as well as age. Implications from the study include the need to involve frontline nurses in developing strategies that will retain them. Following further investigation of the nurses' preferred strategies, it may be necessary for organizations to develop an array of retention strategies rather than implementing a single solution. In future research, generational preferences and the possible dissonance between nurse managers and frontline nurses' perceptions should be explored.
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 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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it