Nurses survey responses about knowledge of nurse practice councils at St. Paul’s Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This electronic survey study was designed to examine the perceptions, knowledge and commitment of nursing staff regarding shared governance (Nurse Practice Council) at St. Paul’s Hospital (SPH). A cross-sectional survey design was used in this study. The study was conducted in the summer of 2010 at St. Paul’s Hospital, a tertiary hospital in Vancouver, B.C. A 114 nurses participated in the survey who were eligible and agreed to participate in the study. An electronic standardized SG survey was used to collect data for this study. The survey used Likert-like questions to measure the nurses’ perception, knowledge and commitment to the Nurse Practice Council (NPC). Additionally a small number of open-ended questions were used to verify the data from the Likert-like responses. Descriptive statistics were used to measure the level of perception, knowledge and commitment of nurses toward the Nurse Practice Council. Finally content analysis was employed to analyze the nurses’ responses to the open-ended questions. The SG study findings suggest: (1) Staff at SPH supports NPC and has a positive perception of NPC; (2) Staff members do not have enough knowledge about the NPC; and (3) Staff is not sure if administration at SPH is committed to the work of the NPC. The findings also indicate that staff believes the NPC has the potential to make a difference by increasing frontline nurse staff involvement, through education and awareness. Additionally leaders require education in order to increase administrative support and indirectly improve frontline attendance. Results of the one-way ANOVA showed that knowledge of NPC was statistically significant and varied according to practice area. However, no significant results were identified when examining perceptions and commitment according to practice area. In considering the literature that suggests perceptions, knowledge and commitment are essential in the implementation and sustainment of SG, it is surprising that the only significant result was knowledge. These findings indicated that more work is required to improve nurses’ perceptions of NPC, moreover improving the commitment level of staff to SG and the NPC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".