Registered nurses' experiences with an evidence-based home care pathway for myocardial infarction clients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To obtain home health nurses' comments on an evidence-based care pathway for post myocardial infarction. DESIGN: A qualitative design was used. SETTING: Culturally diverse, lower income area of a large city. PARTICIPANTS: All home health nurses from one nursing agency who participated in a comparative study on the impact of the evidence-based care pathway. RESULTS: The largest number of comments made by the nurses were related to the beneficial impact of the pathway on the provision of quality nursing care and on increased job satisfaction. The home health nurses reported that the pathway increased clients' knowledge of medications and diet. In addition, they commented that they were able to use the pathway effectively because of the training they received from the inpatient cardiac nurses. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study demonstrates the benefits of investing in the implementation of best practice guidelines by home health nurses. However, nursing associations, such as the Canadian Community Health Nurses Initiatives Group, will need to continue to champion for additional funds to support the additional expenses incurred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".