Nurses’ knowledge of legal aspects of nursing practice in Ibadan, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of law that establishes a profession is essential for the professional. Nurses practice within an environment in which accountability is demanded by the professional body as well as the communities they serve. This implies that the very nature of nursing practice requires nurses to be vigilant about understanding of the law. However, there is paucity of empirical evidence of nurses’ knowledge of legal aspects of nursing. This paper presents a report of a survey of nurses’ knowledge of legal aspects of nursing in Nigeria. The descriptive study utilized a 39-item questionnaire developed by the researchers to gather information from 161 nurses from different categories of hospitals in Ibadan. A simple random technique was used in selecting respondents in each ward of the settings. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The sample consisted of 20 males (12.4%) and 141 females (87.6%) with varying years of experience. Nurses have knowledge of general law of the land (58.4%) but the majority had knowledge deficits of laws governing nursing practice (77.6%). About 57 %( 91) of nurses indicated that their hospitals have institutional policies that govern how nurses practice but only 50% knew the content and intent of the policies. The hallmark of professionalism is accountability. The best way to practice nursing effectively is being highly knowledgeable about the science and art of nursing coupled with sound knowledge of the laws that establish; control and promote nursing practice. It is therefore recommended that the stake holders in nursing be more involved in ensuring adequate knowledge of legal aspects of nursing practice to achieve the Nursing goal of quality 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 | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".