Nurses’ Perspectives on the Geriatric Nursing Practice Environment and the Quality of Older People’s Care in Ontario Acute Care Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cultivating hospital environments that support older people's care is a national priority. Evidence on geriatric nursing practice environments, obtained from studies of registered nurses (RNs) in American teaching hospitals, may have limited applicability to Canada, where RNs and registered practical nurses (RPNs) care for older people in predominantly nonteaching hospitals. Purpose This study describes nurses' perceptions of the overall quality of care for older people and the geriatric nursing practice environment (geriatric resources, interprofessional collaboration, and organizational value of older people's care) and examines if these perceptions differ by professional designation and hospital teaching status. Methods A cross-sectional survey, using Dillman's tailored design, that included Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile subscales, was completed by 2005 Ontario RNs and registered practical nurses to assess their perceptions of the quality of care and geriatric nursing practice environment. Results Scores on the Geriatric Institutional Assessment Profile subscales averaged slightly above the midpoint except for geriatric resources which was slightly below. Registered practical nurses rated the quality of care and geriatric nursing practice environment higher than RNs; no significant differences were found by hospital teaching status. Conclusions Nurses' perceptions of older people's care and the geriatric nursing practice environment differ by professional designation but not hospital teaching status. Teaching and nonteaching hospitals should both be targeted for geriatric nursing practice environment improvement initiatives.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".