Clinical Nursing Leadership Education in Long-Term Care: Intervention Design and Evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of the current case study was to investigate the perceived leadership learning needs and feasibility of delivering leadership education to registered staff involved in direct care in long-term care (LTC) homes. The study was conducted in Ontario, Canada, and participants included RNs, registered practical nurses, and nursing administrators. Phase 1 bilingual web-based survey and bilingual focus group needs assessment data supported a preference for external training along with in-house mentoring to support sustainability. An intervention designed using insights gained from Phase 1 data was delivered via a 2-day, in-person workshop. Phases 2 and 3 evaluation survey data identified aspects of leadership training for LTC that require ongoing refinement. Findings suggest that communication skills and managing day-to-day nursing demands in the context of regulatory frameworks were areas of particular interest for leadership training in the LTC setting. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 43(4), 49-56.].
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it