A systematic review of evidence on the professional practice of the nurse and developing and sustaining a healthy work environment in healthcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The overall aim of this systematic review was to identify the best available evidence on the relationship between the knowledge, competencies and behaviours of nurses exhibiting professional practice in their workplace; and the development of a healthy work environment. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search strategy sought to find both published and unpublished studies written in the English language. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL databases was undertaken to identify optimal search terms. A second extensive search using all identified key words and index terms was then undertaken. METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY: Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of retrieved papers using the corresponding checklist from the System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (SUMARI) package. RESULTS: Of the 4238 papers found in the search: 219 were selected for full paper retrieval; 19 of these papers were unable to be located; 200 full papers were assessed for methodological quality; 181 studies were excluded; and 19 were included in the review. Of these 19, four quantitative studies evaluated a professional nursing practice model and its impact on a variety of outcomes; five descriptive studies examined elements of nurses' professional practice and the impact these elements had on specified outcomes; and 10 qualitative papers examined varying behaviours, competencies and knowledge levels of nurses. Various methods were used, such as focus groups and open-ended interviews. Overall, the evidence suggests that professional practice has a positive impact on the work environment in terms of nurses' role satisfaction and patient outcomes. The evidence is, however, equivocal in many areas and the impact of the professional practice of the nurse requires further investigation. CONCLUSION: The results of the review suggest a number of recommendations for practice and research on creating a healthy work environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.155 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".