A national survey of community psychiatric nurses and their client care activities in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, people with mental health problems in Ireland and in the UK are receiving mental health services in the community. The aim of this study was to identify the predominant approaches to care used by community psychiatric nurses (CPNs) and the theoretical bases of their practice. One hundred and sixteen questionnaires out of 203 sent to CPNs throughout Ireland were returned, giving a response rate of 57.1%. In addition, 33 home visits by 13 CPNs were observed. The findings showed that over 96% of the sample were in full-time employment; most (71.4%) worked a 9-5 weekday shift; 31% had a postregistration counselling qualification, and about a quarter were based in hospitals. The average caseload size was 61 and the service was predominantly a closed referral one. The main client care activities were: assessment of clients, medication management, health promotion, and client and family support. From the observations, there was no evidence of CPNs practising cognitive, behaviour therapy or family therapies to any great extent. This study provides baseline data for monitoring trends in community mental health nursing in Ireland, and for informing future policy regarding service provision and training of CPNs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".