Joint Education Fosters Collaboration and Role Clarity Between Practical and Degree Nursing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tensions and hierarchies among nurses who have different educational preparations can hinder effective communication and collaborative practices. METHOD: A 2-year longitudinal cohort study involving 214 participants explored the influences of joint education on Canadian Practical Nursing (PN) and Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BScN) students. RESULTS: Joint education helps students dismantle unhelpful power relations, address myths and misconceptions about the other, and develop respect for each other's contributions to patient care. CONCLUSION: Joint education enhances collaboration between nursing designations by placing a focus on the actual knowledge, skill, and judgment rather than on the hierarchies established through credentialing. Joint education also assists students to see overlap in scope of practice and points of intersection requiring collaboration. This understanding promotes safe patient-focused care. Contextualizing the findings within broader discourses, such as the professions, institutions, regulating organizations, and sociopolitical relations within nursing, exposes future possibilities within nursing education. [J Nurs Educ. 2016;55(11):623-630.].
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".