Chevauchement, interdépendance ou complémentarité ?, la collaboration interprofessionnelle entre l’infirmière praticienne et d’autres professionnels de santé en Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Naylor Report (2015) states that nurse practitioners (NP) are still underutilized in Canada despite positive evidence of their work and the benefits they provide to health systems and, more generally, the health of the population. METHODS: Why are nurse practitioners not more actively involved in the Canadian health care system? A socio-historical literature review showed that there is overlap, interdependence or complementarity between the role of NPs and that of other health professionals and that this concerns their status, training as well as the scope of their practice. The development of an interprofessional collaborative approach, although supported by most professional nursing associations in Canada, is difficult to establish in NP practice and training. RESULTS: This article describes the emergence of the role of NPs in Canada and provides an update on the current status of their integration in the health system with reference to the Ontario example. It provides insight into the overlap and zones of complementarity or interdependence between NPs and other health professionals. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the authors call for improved governance by the contribution of a new collaborative contract with other health professionals. This contract should be based on the interdependence of practices and the complementarity of roles between all health professionals including NPs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".