Coming and staying: a qualitative exploration of Registered Nurses’ experiences working in nursing homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. This paper reports on a qualitative study that explored the reasons why Registered Nurses (RNs) chose to work in nursing homes in Southern Ontario, Canada and what factors attracted them to remain. Background. There is a paucity of information about factors associated with the recruitment and retention of RNs within long-term care (LTC) in Canada. As the population of older people is growing in Canada and elsewhere, it is essential that we better understand what attracts RNs to work and remain in this setting. Design and method. A case study approach was used in this study of nine RNs working in three nursing homes. Data were collected through in-depth interviews. Findings. Six sub-themes were identified: 'Job of Choice', 'Job of Convenience', 'Caring for the Residents', 'A Supportive Environment', 'Heavy Workload' and 'Supervisory Role of the RN'. Conclusion. Nurses chose to work in the nursing home because it was a 'Job of Convenience'. However, characteristics of the organizational environment played a major role in their remaining. Also, the caring relationship with residents played a role in the nurses remaining in this setting. Relevance to clinical practice. Strategies are provided that nurse managers may consider when planning recruitment and retention activities for LTC settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".