MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2482160637 · doi:10.1111/wvn.12170

An Integrative Review of the Structures and Processes Related to Nurse Supervisory Performance in Long‐Term Care

2016· article· en· W2482160637 on OpenAlexaff
Charlene H. Chu, Jenny Ploeg, Rosalind Wong, Julie Blain, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueWorldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupervisorNursingStaffingInclusion (mineral)PsychologyJob satisfactionPerceptionMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Understanding the structures and processes related to the supervisor performance of regulated nurses (registered nurses [RN] and registered practical nurses [RPN]) is critical in order to discern how administrators of long-term care (LTC) homes can facilitate and better support nurses given their important contribution to nurse assistants' job satisfaction and resident outcomes. AIMS: The aim of this integrative review is to identify the structures and processes related to supervisory performance of regulated nurses in LTC. METHODS: An electronic search of six databases for studies published in English between 2000 and September 2015 was conducted by a librarian. The inclusion criteria were studies focused on RN or RPN supervisory performance in LTC, which included a structure or process related to supervisory performance of the nurse. Screening, quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool, and data extraction for the included studies were conducted independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included in the review. Six nurse structures (e.g., nurses' "perceptions of their supervisory role and authority" as well as their "personal qualities"), and eight organizational structures (e.g., "organizational support (culture) for supervisory and management practices" and "staffing levels") were identified. Six processes of effective supervisory performance were identified, such as "being flexible, understanding, considerate listeners and encourage staff input" as well as "respect, value, recognize, acknowledge and motivate" nursing assistants they supervise. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: The results highlight the nuanced and complex nature of nurses' supervisory performance and the multifaceted approach required to support effective nurse supervisors in LTC. Future research should examine how resident-related structures, as well as other moderators and mediators, may influence supervisory performance. Developing detailed models of effective supervision can inform future interventions targeting modifiable processes related to supervisory performance to thereby change practice and optimize supervisory performance in LTC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorldviews on Evidence-Based NursingSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207