The role of nurse practitioners in hospital settings: implications for interprofessional 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
Expansion of the nurse practitioner (NP) role worldwide indicates a need to understand how the role functions in interprofessional healthcare teams. Through the adoption of a mixed methods approach that gathered on-site tracking and observation, self-recorded logs of consultations and focus group interviews of team members and NPs, we describe the extent of role activity and the nature of interprofessional practices of 46 NPs and their team members in nine hospital sites across the province of Ontario, Canada. Findings outline the nature of the NP role activities, which largely focused on providing clinical care, with the support of their team, to a range of patients across the study settings. We discuss how 'embedding' the NP in this way appears to contribute to utilization of expertise of all professions as well as enabling team members to promote evidence-based practices. We argue that the use of NPs augments interprofessional role utilization through their desire to consult with a range of professionals and the capacity to perform holistic care for patients that is not limited to traditional nursing boundaries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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