A survey of interprofessional activity of acute and long-term care employed nurse practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe activities of interprofessional (IP) care, a key aspect of high-quality care, performed by nurse practitioners (NPs) employed in acute and long-term care institutions. DATA SOURCES: We developed and tested a new theory-driven process tool to quantify NP everyday activities of IP care. We then invited NPs in acute and long-term care to complete the IP self-assessment tool (IPSAT). CONCLUSIONS: The IPSAT is a validated tool shown to be reliable for use with NPs. Testing with other healthcare professionals is suggested. More than 50% of NPs engage in all activities of IP care. Many engage in shared decision making, professional relationship, communication, and partnership or collaboration activities on most work days. Less-common activities were interdependence and collective problem solving including efforts to create role clarity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: It is important to evaluate the everyday use of activities that enhance high-quality care. Awareness and enhanced knowledge of IP care activities such as promoting interdependence, collective problem solving, and ensuring role clarity will improve care quality. The tool results are valuable for practicing NPs and their educators to reflect on practice and advance knowledge to influence purposeful engagement in interprofessional care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".