Processes in healthcare teams that include nurse practitioners: what do patients and families perceive to be effective?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore patient and family perceptions of team effectiveness of teams those include nurse practitioners in acute and primary care. BACKGROUND: Nurse practitioners provide safe and effective care. Patients are satisfied with the care provided by nurse practitioners. Research examining patient and family perceptions of team effectiveness following the implementation of nurse practitioners in teams is lacking. DESIGN: A descriptive qualitative design was used. METHODS: We used purposeful sampling to identify participants in four clinical specialties. We collected data from March 2014-January 2015 using semi-structured interviews and demographic questionnaires. Content analysis was used. Descriptive statistics were generated. RESULTS: Participants (n = 49) believed that the teams were more effective after the implementation of a nurse practitioner and this was important to them. They described processes that teams with nurse practitioners used to effectively provide care. These processes included improved communication, involvement in decision-making, cohesion, care coordination, problem-solving, and a focus on the needs of patients and families. Participants highlighted the importance of interpersonal team dynamics. A human approach, trust, being open to discussion, listening to patient and family concerns and respect were particularly valued by participants. Different processes emerged as priorities when data were examined by speciality. However, communication, trust and taking the time to provide care were the most important processes. CONCLUSION: The study provides new insights into the views of patients and families and micro-level processes in teams with nurse practitioners. The relative importance of each process varied according to the patient's health condition. Patients and providers identified similar team processes. Future research is needed to identify how team processes influence care outcomes. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings can support patients, clinicians and decision-makers to determine the processes to focus on to promote effective team functioning, and involve patients and families as team members.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".