MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2487790147 · doi:10.1186/s12912-016-0169-z

Rationing of nursing care interventions and its association with nurse-reported outcomes in the neonatal intensive care unit: a cross-sectional survey

2016· article· en· W2487790147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Nursing · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyNursing researchNursing managementNursingPsychological interventionNeonatal intensive care unitNursing Interventions ClassificationAssociation (psychology)Nursing careFamily medicinePediatricsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence internationally suggests that staffing constraints and non-supportive work environments result in the rationing of nursing interventions (that is, limiting or omitting interventions for particular patients), which in turn may influence patient outcomes. In the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), preliminary studies have found that discharge preparation and infant comfort care are among the most frequently rationed nursing interventions. However, it is unknown if the rationing of discharge preparation is related to lower perceptions of parent and infant readiness for NICU discharge, and if reports of increased rationing of infant comfort care are related to lower levels of perceived neonatal pain control. The purpose of this study was to assess these relationships. METHODS: In late 2014, a cross-sectional survey was mailed to 285 Registered Nurses (RNs) working in one of 7 NICUs in the province of Quebec (Canada). The survey contained validated measures of care rationing, parent and infant readiness for discharge, and pain control, as well as items measuring RNs' characteristics. Multivariate regression was used to examine the association between care rationing, readiness for discharge and pain control, while adjusting for RNs' characteristics and clustering within NICUs. RESULTS: Overall, 125 RNs completed the survey; a 44.0 % response rate. Among the respondents, 28.0 and 40.0 % reported rationing discharge preparation and infant comfort care "often" or "very often", respectively. Additionally, 15.2 % of respondents felt parents and infants were underprepared for NICU discharge, and 54.4 % felt that pain was not well managed on their unit. In multivariate analyses, the rationing of discharge preparation was negatively related to RNs' perceptions of parent and infant readiness for discharge, while reports of rationing of parental support and teaching and infant comfort care were associated with less favourable perceptions of neonatal pain control. CONCLUSIONS: The rationing of nursing interventions appears to influence parent and infant readiness for discharge, as well as pain control in NICUs. Future investigations, in neonatal nursing care as well as in other nursing specialties, should address objectively measured patient outcomes (such as objective pain assessments and post-discharge outcomes assessed through administrative data).

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.306 · 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