Complexities of Introducing Group Medical Visits With Nurse Practitioners in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, increasing numbers of people with chronic conditions have prompted calls for innovative approaches to delivering primary care. These approaches may include group medical visits (GMVs) and the introduction of nurse practitioners (NPs). We examined why NPs in the province of British Columbia were not using GMVs. This case study is part of a larger research project that examined the impact of GMVs with NPs for patients with chronic conditions. We completed open-ended interviews with seven NPs working in primary care. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Data were analyzed using interpretive descriptive approaches. Three major themes emerged: (a) advantages of GMVs, (b) questioning the fit of GMVs in current practice contexts, and (c) navigating scope of practice and role constraints that affect NPs' ability to use GMVs. Power dynamics and hierarchies may influence NPs' ability to adapt to GMVs. Consideration of practice environments and structures that enable the NPs ability to diffuse and utilize health-care innovative care delivery methods is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".