Clinical nurse specialists in palliative care. Part 2. Explaining diversity in the organization and costs of Macmillan nursing services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the UK, the work of Macmillan clinical nurse specialists in palliative care is now well established. There has been little research, however, into the organizational context in which these nurses operate and the implications for the services they deliver. We report on a major evaluation of the service delivery, costs, and outcomes of Macmillan nursing services in hospital and community settings. The study was based on eight weeks of fieldwork in each of 12 selected services. Data are presented from semi-structured interviews, clinical records, and cost analysis. We demonstrate wide variation across several dimensions: location and context of the services; activity levels; management patterns; work organization and content; links with other colleagues; and resource use. We suggest that such variation is likely to indicate the existence of both excellent practice and suboptimal practice. In particular, our study highlights problems in how teamwork is conceptualized and delivered. We draw on recent organizational theories to make sense of the heterogeneous nature of Macmillan nursing services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".