Nursing skill mix and outcomes: a Singapore perspective
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
AIM: To summarize key evidence on nursing skill mix in acute care hospitals and their limitations; and identify the gaps in current literature vis-à-vis Singapore's nursing workforce. BACKGROUND: Nursing skill mix has been theorized to be a factor influencing patient, nurse and organizational outcomes. While there is a growing body of literature explicating associations between nursing skill mix and positive outcomes, the evidence does not as yet provide firm directions in determining the best configuration. In addition, differences in nursing workforce characteristics also make it difficult to apply findings from one healthcare setting to another. CONCLUSIONS: In reviewing key evidence from the United States of America and Canada, this paper highlights three critical gaps in the nursing skill mix literature when examined in the context of Singapore's nursing workforce. Issues related to the interface between local and foreign nurses, the impact of speciality education, and the possible effects that work roles and distribution may have on quality of care need to be further examined. This knowledge should provide a robust evidence base with which to inform national policy on skill mix and maximize nursing resources in order to achieve optimal outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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