Nurse Practitioner and Physician Collaboration in Long-Term Care Homes: Survey Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This survey assessed the extent of and satisfaction with collaboration between physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) working in Ontario long-term care homes. Questionnaires, which included the Measure of Current Collaboration and Provider Satisfaction with Current Collaboration instruments, were mailed to NPs and physicians with whom the NP most frequently worked. The 14 matched-pairs of NPs and physicians reported similar levels of collaboration; however, physicians were significantly more satisfied with collaboration than were NPs (z = -2.67, p = 0.008). The majority of physicians (85%) and NPs (86%) indicated that collaboration was occurring, and 96 per cent of physicians and 79 per cent of NPs were satisfied with their collaboration. About one third of physicians reported that the NP had a negative effect on their income, but their satisfaction with collaboration did not differ from those who reported a positive effect. Overall, these physicians and NPs collaborate in delivering care and are satisfied with their collaboration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".