MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101652597 · doi:10.1080/14639230801886824

An online interprofessional learning resource for physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and nurses in long-term care: Benefits, barriers, and lessons learned

2008· article· en· W2101652597 on OpenAlexafffund
Colla J. MacDonald, Emma J. Stodel, Larry W. Chambers

Bibliographic record

VenueInformatics for Health and Social Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalLearning PartnershipUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsNursingResource (disambiguation)MedicineInterprofessional educationTerm (time)MEDLINEMedical educationHealth careComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of collaborative practice in health care has been emphasized.1,21, 2 There is a critical need for convenient and flexible education opportunities that support the development of collaborative practice skills among the health care workforce. Consequently, the purpose of this project was to create and evaluate an online learning resource for physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists working in long-term care that provided practitioners with the skills, knowledge, and motivation necessary to enhance their ability to act as an interprofessional team while providing clinical care. The Demand-Driven Learning Model 3 was used to guide the project. Findings revealed learners enjoyed the programme and acquired new skills and knowledge relating to collaborative practice that they transferred to their workplace resulting in higher levels of collaborative practice. The data did not reveal significant changes in the learners' attitudes towards collaborative practice; perhaps because the participants were early adopters and already had positive attitudes. Requests to change organizational structure to enhance collaborative practice were minimal, as was the impact of the resource on resident care. Given the short time frame from completion of the learning resource to the evaluation, this is perhaps not surprising as it is reasonable to expect that these types of changes will take time to take effect within the organization. Follow-ups at a later date are suggested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformatics for Health and Social CareSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207