Experiences of nurses working in a stroke rehabilitation unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of a study to explore the perceptions, beliefs and feelings of a group of nurses who provided care to individuals admitted to a stroke rehabilitation unit. BACKGROUND: Following a stroke, survivors should ideally be referred to multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation programmes, which attain better outcomes compared to the care provided on general medical wards. However, to achieve these outcomes, team members must work closely together. Communication problems have been reported in these teams, and other members may consider that nurses do not practise functional activities with patients. METHODS: An interpretive phenomenological approach was adopted. Eight nurses in one Canadian stroke rehabilitation unit were interviewed during 2004-2005 about their experiences of providing care to stroke survivors. FINDINGS: The nurses enjoyed giving this type of care, feeling that their role was pivotal to the rehabilitation process. At times, they found it difficult to let patients struggle to complete their activities of daily living. The nurses felt that lack of resources, including time, contributed to stroke survivors being short-changed in their rehabilitation nursing care. Despite holding strong views that others devalued their role within the stroke team, the nurses retained positive attitudes. CONCLUSION: Stroke teams need to recognize the constraints nurses experience in fulfilling their stroke rehabilitation role in order to foster the collegial support that could contribute to a more interactive and respectful work environment. They also need to consider ways to increase the job satisfaction of nurses working in stroke rehabilitation settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".