MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030209516 · doi:10.1207/s15327655jchn1904_03

Challenges in Home Care Practice: A Decision-Making Perspective

2002· article· en· W2030209516 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn A. Smith Higuchi, Tony Christensen, Jennifer Terpstra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Health Nursing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)NursingClinical decision makingEthical decisionQualitative researchMedicineClinical PracticeEthnographyPsychologyFamily medicineSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A qualitative approach using an ethnographic design was used to investigate the nature of clinical decision making in home care practice from home care nurses' perspective. In-depth interviews were conducted with experienced home care nurses (N = 16) in addition to observations of nurses during meetings and client visits. The findings indicate that the decision-making challenges involved in home care practice consisted of the following 4 major categories: (a) challenges that arise in the development of client-centered care plans, (b) challenges that arise from the home care practice environment, (c) challenges related to developing confidence in clinical decision making, and (d) challenges in ethical decision making. Education and practice recommendations for enhancing clinical decision making are also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.025
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.286
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Health NursingSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207