Perceptions of Nurses on Patient Outcomes Related to Nursing Shortage and Retention Strategies at a Public Hospital in the Coastal Region of Tanzania
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
Background: There is little disagreement that the shortage of nurses affects patients’ outcomes globally. However, within the low and middle income country setting, there is minimal known about the perceptions of nurses on nursing shortages impact the health outcomes of their patients and what recruitment and retention strategies might be appropriate to address some of these challenges. This study explored the perceptions of nurses on the health outcomes of patient related to shortage of registered nurses and the strategies to retain nurses at a public hospital in Tanzania. Method: This qualitative descriptive study used semi-structured in-depth interviews with a select group of nurses in a large public hospital. Findings: Through an iterative coding process, a series of categories were derived which yielded three major themes—factors contributing to nursing shortage; compromised quality of care; and recruitment and retention strategies. Conclusion: A shortage of nurses affects the health outcomes of patients as it potentially hinders timely accomplishment of the optimal nursing. Efforts need to be proactive in recognizing the reasons for nursing shortages which are rooted in individual, institutional (agency), and organizational (systemic) issues. Within the LMIC context, such as where this study was conducted, it became apparent that the nurses wanted acknowledgement and opportunities to work collaboratively towards the resolution of workload issues for the benefit of the patients.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it