MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099799544 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2003.16250

Practice: What Will Change in Nursing Practice Over the Next Five Years?

2003· review· en· W2099799544 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing leadership · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringInterdependenceCommissionHealth care reformPublic relationsNursingHealth carePopulationAction (physics)Quality (philosophy)Order (exchange)Political sciencePsychologyMedicineBusinessHealth policyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The answer: “It depends.” The question in the title is by no means easy to answer. There are too many variables – independent, interdependent and dependent – all of which will affect the final outcome. I think a much easier question for me to answer would be “What should change”; but I digress. My task is to reflect on what will change in nursing practice over the next five years. Since the early 1990s, healthcare has undergone major reform in order to reduce or maintain costs while attempting to increase the quality of outcomes. Such strategies as downsizing, restructuring, rightsizing and re-engineering were utilized in order to achieve “system reform.” However, system reform requires an alignment of structure, process and outcome. All too often over the past 10 to 15 years, the focus of system reform has been on structure for example, the Sinclair restructuring commission and the reform of Community Care Action Centres. In addition, consumer knowledge and expectations have increased, the client population has continued to age and technology has continued to outpace social norms, morals and values. Issues identified in the 1980s by such groups as the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) and the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA) continue to be issues today. In 1981, the RNAO held a Think Tank on Nursing Leadership. In its report on the Think Tank (RNAO 1982), the RNAO identified issues that included educational entry level to the profession, specialization, changing roles in institutional and primary care, ethical decision-making, professional rights and responsibilities and adequacy of nursing manpower. The presence or absence of nursing leadership was also identified as having a major effect on the quality of client care. These issues made the need for strong and effective leadership a priority for the profession in the future. The recommendations that arose from the Think Tank are still current. What Will Change in Nursing Practice Over the Next Five Years?

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.019
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.530
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.017 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing leadershipSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207