Physical assessment: implications for nurse educators and nursing practice
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
AIM: In New Zealand, the physical assessment of a patient has traditionally been the domain of the medical profession. As a country implementing advanced practice roles, with an expectation that both nurse practitioners and registered nurses will use physical assessment skills, the relevancy of physical assessment for each scope of practice has currency. The aim of this literature review was to discover what could be learnt from the experiences of Western countries that already incorporate physical assessment skills into nurses' health assessment. FINDINGS: Nurses in the USA, and more recently Canada and Australia, readily incorporate physical assessment skills into their nursing practice as a component of health assessment. The international literature identified that any change to the nurse's role in health assessment, to include physical assessment skills, requires strategies that involve the regulatory, educational and practice components of nursing. CONCLUSION: Nurses and other health professionals must perceive that this role expansion will improve health outcomes for the diverse populations accessing health care. Teaching physical assessment skills within a holistic health model will enable nurses to contribute a more comprehensive health assessment to the planning and monitoring of people's health 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it