Nurses’ representations of caring for intellectually disabled patients and perceived needs to ensure quality care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore nurses' representations of caring for people with an intellectual disability, intervention strategies they currently use, and to identify needs to ensure quality care. BACKGROUND: Nurses work in many environments and with diverse clienteles. Certain clienteles have needs that require specific approaches, such as persons who have an intellectual disability. The care offered to these patients can be influenced by the representations held by the nurses caring for them. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis were conducted with 18 nurses working in hospital and community settings. RESULTS: Nurses are concerned with their ability to recognise the specific nature and complex needs associated with patients' intellectual disabilities, promoting quality care by managing the behavioural and communication challenges, as well as coping with the perceived lack of time and organisation within the work environment. Current strategies involve trying to promote the continuity of care. Participants also identified their learning needs, which are relational and informational in nature. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses appear typically mindful of wanting to provide quality care to patients who have an intellectual disability, while recognising that there are many contextual and practical elements that require improvement to ensure the security of these patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses must be educated to adapt to findings emerging from current research showing that people with an intellectual disability want to be part of their local communities and encourage these persons to do so. This can be facilitated through the adoption of specific guidelines, protocols and care programmes. Further research is needed to develop a better understanding of the expectations of these patients and their caregivers, focusing on self-advocacy as well as health promotion techniques, with the goal of enhancing personalised practice standards and reducing health education inequalities for these patients.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".