Intimacy Boundaries: Between Mental Health Nurses & Psychiatric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was the first research study in Canada to explore intimacy boundary violations and sexual misconduct between nurses (both RNs and registered psychiatric nurses) and patients. Using a researcher-generated survey, a total of 923 mental health nurses commented on their sexual attraction to patients, and dating and sexual intercourse patterns with patients. The findings indicated that very few nurses had dated or engaged in sexual intercourse with discharged patients, and the few nurses who had done so tended to be younger men prepared at the registered psychiatric nursing diploma level. A small number of nurses believed it was permissible to have a sexual relationship with a patient while the patient was hospitalized, but none reported having a current relationship. Given the severity of this intimacy boundary violation, nurses need to be educated regarding the serious and dangerous psychiatric effects that can result for patients from engaging in a sexual relationship with nurses. The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Nurses Association and nurses' obligation to follow it needs to be reinforced. Nurses engaging in intimacy boundary violations are vulnerable to patient-initiated lawsuits.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".