MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077542439 · doi:10.12927/hcq..16540

Who Knows Best: the Patient or the Provider? A Nursing Perspective

2000· review· en· W2077542439 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Tranmer

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsKingston General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationPerspective (graphical)NursingHealth careBest practicePatient experienceMedicinePsychologySociologyManagementPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Who knows best: the patient or the provider? My opinion, based on a review of the literature and practical experience, is that the patient, the provider and the system each offer a unique perspective that we can draw upon in ensuring quality care across the continuum. Nurses have a unique body of knowledge and skill that they bring to each interaction with the patient. They must have an awareness of the patient's and the system's expectations and interact and negotiate realistic expectations for each. The maintenance of balanced expectations and the measurement of effectiveness will continue to be a challenge. However, patients should be involved in and direct aspects of their care and feel satisfied with the process. Ultimately, nurses and the hospitals in which they work are responsible for providing effective and satisfying care. I would like to end by reinforcing the importance of the patient's voice in the provision of compassionate care. It is disheartening to read about patients' experiences of "discompassionate healthcare" (Holloway 1999). Yet I am reassured when I read or experience examples of compassionate and effective care such as that outlined by Valerie McDonald. (Hospital Quarterly Winter 1999/2000) Ms. McDonald, a former social worker and adult educator, is the mother of three daughters, one who had Burkitt's lymphoma diagnosed in 1994 and a second who had acute lymphostatic leukemia diagnosed in 1997 and who died recently in 1999. McDonald provided a wonderful perspective about her hospital experiences--the good and the bad. There would be no denying from this report that patients know the key qualities necessary for effective and compassionate care and that this mother recognized the energy and time it took to provide this care. "I hope," she states, "as the dust settles from restructuring and cutbacks that hospital staff will still have the time, energy and flexibility to practice the art of healing as they did with my children" (p. 24). I too reinforce that we must ensure nurses (and others) have the resources, the flexibility within their roles and the knowledge and skill to practise both the art and science of nursing.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.023
Scholarly communication0.0110.020
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0170.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207