Persistent isolationist or collaborator? The nurse’s role in interprofessional collaborative practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The present study explores current understanding about interprofessional collaborative client-centred practice and nursing's role in this form of care delivery. BACKGROUND: A profession-only focus on nursing practice has been challenged at professional, national governmental and World Health Organization levels stressing for more interprofessional patient-centred collaborative teamwork. EVALUATION: Moving to patient-centred collaborative practice is fraught with barriers. Enablers can result in building trust, power sharing and shared decision-making. Changing current workplace environments requires institutional commitments to support collaborative team development. KEY ISSUE(S): Nurses can become collaborative members of teams through: (1) re-socialize; (2) understanding and articulating nurses roles, knowledge and skills to others; (3) other health providers sharing the same to nurses; (4) identifying where shared roles, knowledge and skills exist; and (5) learning to work in collaborative teams. Nurses must address some fundamental issues about practice that negate collaboration and patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: All professionals, including nurses, must move away from a service-oriented delivery to a patient-centred collaborative approach to care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: The values within health organizations need to be underpinned by collaborative interprofessional patient-centred practice. To accomplish this goal, administrators and managers must support assessment of employees and visiting physicians as to their conformance with agency established expectations for such practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".