Person-Centredness and Fundamentals of Care – Dancing with Beauty Rather than Fighting Ugliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamentals of care have re-emerged as an important consideration in nursing following a period when these role elements were predominantly "delegated tasks" delivered by other (usually unregistered/unregulated) members of the health and social care team. Contemporary critiques of nursing highlight the technical focus of nursing at the expense of its caring function. Person-centred nursing theory offers a way of reinstating the value of fundamental care as a core part of providing holistic nursing to persons as well as highlighting the importance of the nursing role in coordinating healthcare services in ways that are consistent with a person's beliefs and values. This paper argues that a focus on person-centredness enables the core function of nurses as providers and coordinators of holistic person-centred fundamental care to be revalued. It highlights the importance of nurses being clear about "what matters" in caring practices and suggests that nurses adopting a person-centred approach can achieve effective care coordination through the lens of the fundamentals of care. In reading this paper, a greater understanding of person-centredness in the context of the fundamentals of care can be achieved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".