Recognizing and Responding to Uncertainty: A Grounded Theory of Nurses’ Uncertainty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been little research to date exploring nurses' uncertainty in their practice. Understanding nurses' uncertainty is important because it has potential implications for how care is delivered. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to develop a substantive theory to explain how staff nurses experience and respond to uncertainty in their practice. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2008, a grounded theory study was conducted that included in-depth semi-structured interviews. Fourteen staff nurses working in adult medical-surgical intensive care units at two teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada, participated in the study. FINDINGS: The theory recognizing and responding to uncertainty characterizes the processes through which nurses' uncertainty manifested and how it was managed. Recognizing uncertainty involved the processes of assessing, reflecting, questioning, and/or being unable to predict aspects of the patient situation. Nurses' responses to uncertainty highlighted the cognitive-affective strategies used to manage uncertainty. DISCUSSION: Study findings highlight the importance of acknowledging uncertainty and having collegial support to manage uncertainty. The theory adds to our understanding the processes involved in recognizing uncertainty, strategies and outcomes of managing uncertainty, and influencing factors. IMPLICATIONS: Tailored nursing education programs should be developed to assist nurses in developing skills in articulating and managing their uncertainty. Further research is needed to extend, test and refine the theory of recognizing and responding to uncertainty to develop strategies for managing uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: This theory advances the nursing perspective of uncertainty in clinical practice. The theory is relevant to nurses who are faced with uncertainty and complex clinical decisions, to managers who support nurses in their clinical decision-making, and to researchers who investigate ways to improve decision-making and care delivery.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it