MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The forensic float nurse: A new concept in the effective management of service delivery in a forensic program

2012· article· en· W2150223433 on OpenAlexaff
J. J. Cyr, Jean Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForensic nursingForensic scienceFloat (project management)Service (business)Medical emergencyNursingComputer scienceMedicineEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major challenge faced by Forensic Program management teams is to balance their budgets due to the unpredictability of the forensic patient population, particularly in the context of managing staffing costs where the hospital is not the "gatekeeper" and does not have control over who is admitted and when. In forensic mental health, the justice system, either via the courts, or review boards, determines who is ordered for admission to hospital for assessment or treatment and rehabilitation. Hospitals have little, if any, recourse but to admit these mentally disordered offenders. This typically results in increased levels of staffing with concomitant overtime costs. The literature suggests that clustered float pool nurses develop enhanced relationships with staff and patients, thereby enabling them to attain specialized clinical expertise to treat specific patient populations, promoting safer, high quality care, and overall are more cost effective. Forensic nursing is recognized as a mental health subspecialty. The "Forensic Float Nurse" concept was piloted to provide readily available, highly adaptable, skilled forensic nurses to assist in times of unpredictably heavy workloads and/or unplanned staffing shortages. A significant reduction approaching 50% in overtime was achieved. Heuristic implications of this finding are presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic NursingSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207