Processes of Care: Comparison between Nurse Practitioners and Physician Residents in Acute Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the processes of care (performance of role functions, provision of comprehensive care, coordination of services) of acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) and physician residents (PRs) assigned to various medical and surgical programs in acute care settings. A cross-sectional comparative design was used. ACNPs (n = 31) and PRs (n = 10) completed the study questionnaire within two weeks of consenting. Patients who received ACNP care (n = 320) and those who received PR care (n = 46) completed the questionnaire within one week of discharge. The results indicate that ACNPs engaged in management and informal coordination activities more than PRs did, while PRs engaged in more formal coordination activities compared to ACNPs. ACNPs encouraged more patient participation in care and provided more patient education than PRs. These findings, which reflect differences in the processes used by ACNPs and PRs to provide care to patients, could influence the quality and cost outcomes expected of these two groups of healthcare providers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".