Nursing work environment and quality of care: differences between units at the same hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature suggests that improvements in nurses' work environments may improve the quality of patient care. Furthermore, monitoring the work environment through staff surveys may be a feasible method of identifying opportunities for quality improvement. This study aimed to confirm five proposed sub-scales from the Nursing Work Index - Revised (NWI-R) to assess the nursing work environment and the performance of these sub-scales across different units in a hospital. Data were derived from a cross-sectional survey of 243 nurses from 13 units of a 300-bed university-affiliated hospital in Quebec, Canada, during 2001. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the five subscales were confirmed; three of the sub-scales had greater ability to discriminate between units. Using hierarchical regression models, "resource adequacy" was the sub-scale most strongly associated with the perceived quality of care at the last shift. The NWI-R sub-scales are potentially useful for comparison of work environments of different nursing units at the same hospital.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".