Client-Centred Care: Making the Ideal Real
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Providing quality care in a timely manner is a key goal of the healthcare system. Who defines quality care is a pivotal question to be answered in an era of well-informed clients. The Registered Nurses Association of Ontario's (RNAO) Client-Centred Care Best Practice Guideline puts patients where they belong--at the centre of care. This guideline recommends that nurses embrace as foundational to their practice a set of values and beliefs. These include: respect, human dignity and the belief that clients are the experts regarding their own lives. Clients must be provided the opportunity to lead their care as much as they choose. Moreover, the guideline recommends that nurses advocate for their clients' goals within the entire healthcare team. Recommendations regarding the organization of nursing care emphasize continuity and consistency of care and caregiver as paramount to providing timely and responsive client-centred-care. This article presents the rationale for the development of a CCC-BPG and highlights its key recommendations. It also discusses the responsibilities of healthcare practitioners and administrators in working together to ensure that these recommendations are incorporated into every aspect of client care and services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".