Human Becoming and 80/20: An Innovative Professional Development Model for Nurses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors describe a study that evaluated implementation of a professional development model in which nurses spend 80% of their salaried time in direct patient care and 20% of their salaried time on professional development. The professional development time includes focused learning about patient-centered practice guided by the human becoming nursing theory. A qualitative descriptive preproject-process-postproject method and a longitudinal, repeated measures, descriptive-comparative method were used to answer the research questions. Participants were 33 nurses, 11 other nurse leaders and health professionals, and 55 patients and family members. The findings show that on the study unit overtime hours decreased significantly, the education hours were sustained throughout the study period, workload hours per patient day increased significantly, sick time stayed low, patient satisfaction scores increased, staff satisfaction scores were significantly higher than for comparator groups, and turnover was non-existent among study participants in year 2. Average variable direct labor cost increased over time, but the increase was not significantly higher than on the control units. Themes from the interviews with participants are presented. Ongoing evaluation of the model and implications for future research are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it