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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.026
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 head0.286
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