An Assessment of How Nurse Practitioners Create Access to Primary Care in Canadian Residential Long-Term Care Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to explore the role and activities of nurse practitioners (NPs) working in long-term care (LTC) to understand concepts of access to primary care for residents. Utilizing the "FIT" framework developed by Penchanksy and Thomas, we used a directed content analysis method to analyze data from a pan-Canadian study of NPs in LTC. Individual and focus group interviews were conducted at four sites in western, central and eastern regions of Canada with 143 participants, including NPs, RNs, regulated and unregulated nursing staff, allied health professionals, physicians, administrators and directors and residents and family members. Participants emphasized how the availability and accessibility of the NP had an impact on access to primary and urgent care for residents. Understanding more about how NPs affect access in Canadian LTC will be valuable for nursing practice and healthcare planning and policy and may assist other countries in planning for the introduction of NPs in LTC settings to increase access to primary care.
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 | 0.001 | 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".