Communication enhancement: nurse and patient satisfaction outcomes in a complex continuing care facility
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
AIMS: This paper presents an evaluation of a communication enhancement intervention on staff and patients in a complex continuing care facility. BACKGROUND: The importance of effective communication as a fundamental element of nursing has been emphasized and is regarded as integral to the provision of quality patient care. For people residing in complex continuing care (similar to long-term care facilities), opportunities for socialization occur primarily during interactions or communication with staff, and these interactions have been found to be limited. One way to improve nursing staff communication is through a communication enhancement intervention. METHODS: Twenty-one nursing staff members (Registered Nurses, Registered Practical Nurses and healthcare aides) working in a complex continuing care environment and 16 patients participated in this study, conducted in the summer of 2003. A repeated measures design was used to evaluate the effects of the communication enhancement intervention on outcomes. Data were collected from patients and nurses at baseline, 5 weeks into the intervention and at 10 weeks after the intervention. Nurse outcome variables included nurses' job satisfaction and their relationships with patients; patient outcome variables included two measures of patient satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Nursing staff felt closer to their patients (F(2,40) = 3.0, P = 0.045) following the intervention and reported higher levels of job satisfaction (F(2,40) = 4.1, P = 0.02). No changes were found in the level of patient satisfaction with care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that nursing staff can feel better about their job and about their patients as they enhance their communication skills. Understanding the barriers to finding time to talk with patients for a few minutes a day, outside of direct hands-on caregiving, requires further exploration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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