MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336247814 · doi:10.1177/0840470414551904

Impact of nurse practitioners in primary healthcare fee-for-service practice settings

2015· review· en· W2336247814 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Jackson, H Dunne, Victoria A. Power

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNurse practitionersFee-for-servicePrimary careService (business)NursingFamily medicineHealth carePatient satisfactionMedicineHealthcare systemPrimary health careHealthcare serviceSustainabilityBusinessMarketingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nurse Practitioner (NP) role possesses a high value to Fee-For-Service (FFS) practices in the primary healthcare system. A case study evaluation of the NP roles in three FFS clinics showed positive impacts on patient satisfaction and physician experience. Physicians' FFS expenditures increased 12% after the NP implementation. Although NP services could provide cost savings to the acute care system, financial sustainability of the NP role in FFS practice remains a challenge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.414 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207