Together we are more effective: Nursing team members’ experiences of development work on patient education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Evaluating care pathways, strengthening patient education, developing staff’s patient education skills, and improving collaboration between healthcare workers in hospitals and health centers are all topical challenges in the field of healthcare. Successful patient education requires seamless co-operation across organizational boundaries throughout the whole nursing process. The aim of this study was to assess personnel’s experiences of a developmental nursing project, involving networking between Finnish primary (health centers) and special (hospitals) healthcare organizations, and the significance of development work on patient education in terms of strengthening information flow, co-operation and know-how. The aim of the study was to explore the healthcare personnel’s experiences of development work in the context of networking between organizations, specifically focusing on the impact of development work with regard to information flow, co-operation and strengthening know-how. The specific research question was addressed: What is the impact of development work in this context in relation to information flow, co-operation and readiness for patient education? Methods: Data were collected from theme interviews (n=24) with primary and special healthcare team members who participated in a collaborative project, then analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Results: The findings indicate that development work on patient education improves collective expertise, key components of which are learning as a patients’ counselor, collective know-how, and the exchange of knowledge. Conclusions: Development work can strengthen individual and collective know-how and nursing expertise. In the examined project, enhanced network co-operation increased collaboration between organizations and improved information flow throughout the nursing process. In addition, promotion of development on nursing and provision of feedback to the participants by the nurse manager appear to be crucial for successful development work on patient education. Workplaces and the nurse managers need to provide adequate resources’ to develop nursing processes as well as motivate employees to improve nursing. Additionally, nurse managers should support and guide the healthcare workers in development work toward this goal. Well planned and executed development project can improve nursing practices across organizational boundaries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".