The changing boundaries of nursing: a qualitative study of the transition to a new nursing care delivery model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore how nursing personnel have experienced the introduction of a new nursing care delivery model within their setting. BACKGROUND: New ways of nursing care are being implemented in many countries to contain rising health care costs and deal with ongoing nursing shortages. The adoption of new nursing care delivery models will have a substantial impact on the nature of nursing practice. DESIGN: A qualitative design was used for this study. Symbolic interactionism was used as a guiding framework. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with 20 nurses (17 registered nurses and 3 ancillary nursing personnel) in two hospitals in eastern Canada following the introduction of a new nursing care nursing model. The constant comparative method was used to analyse interview data. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the data: (1) the ownership of tasks, (2) managing the workers, (3) a different way of knowing the patient and (4) the struggle to change. CONCLUSIONS: Nursing boundaries were flexible, regardless of the implementation of a new nursing care delivery model. Nursing tasks shifted from one group of workers to another during the course of the day to meet patient needs. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study highlights the challenges in relation to the introduction of new nursing care delivery models within hospital settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".