[Collaboration between nurses and nurse's aides in wound care].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study describes the collaborative relationship between the Registered Nurses (RNs) and the Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) in wound care. Semi-structured interviews, focus groups and participants observation were used to explore how 3 RNs and 3 RNAs interact in wound care. The findings suggest that two levels of intrapersonal processes constitute the collaborative endeavor. The first level is the intrapersonal process within RNs/RNAs to shape their practice according to their professional roles. The second level is the intrapersonal emotional labor carried out by RNs/RNAs to find balance between their respect for the other group as a whole and their trust for certain individual RNs/RNAs. Intradisciplinary collaboration may contribute to work satisfaction and excellence in patient care. RNs and RNAs are called upon to increase their awareness and understanding of the emotional labor underpinning their interpersonal interactions in order to maintain and promote collaboration at the workplace. It is proposed that nurse managers at all levels promote a culture of collaboration and provide time and space in which the emotional labor of frontline staff is recognized, voiced and valued.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".