Processes of Care: Comparison between Nurse Practitioners and Physician Residents in Acute Care
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
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.
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