MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034009890 · doi:10.1177/1527154406291936

The Impact of Nurse Turnover on Patient, Nurse, and System Outcomes: A Pilot Study and Focus for a Multicenter International Study

2006· article· en· W2034009890 on OpenAlexaff
Linda O’Brien‐Pallas, Pat Griffin, Judith Shamian, James Buchan, Christine Duffield, Frances Hughes, Heather K. Spence Laschinger, Nicola North, Patricia W. Stone

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Politics & Nursing Practice · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Workforce Issues
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityVictorian Order of NursesAdministrative Sciences Association of CanadaCanadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityIdentification (biology)TurnoverNursingUnit (ring theory)Work (physics)Multicenter studyTurnover intentionIndirect costsMedicineBusinessPsychologyJob satisfactionEconomicsRandomized controlled trialAccountingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research about the economic impact of nurse turnover has been compromised by a lack of consistent definitions and measurement. This article describes a study that was designed to refine a methodology to examine the costs associated with nurse turnover. Nursing unit managers responded to a survey that contained items relating to budgeted full-time equivalents, new hires, and turnover, as well as direct and indirect costs. The highest mean direct cost was incurred through temporary replacements, whereas the highest indirect cost was decreased initial productivity of the new hire. The study allowed the identification of the availability of data and where further refinement of data definition of variables is needed. The results provided significant evidence to justify increased emphasis on nurse retention strategies and the creation of healthy work environments for 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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.459 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations191
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Politics & Nursing PracticeSame topicGlobal Health Workforce IssuesFrench-language works237,207