MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790853680 · doi:10.1111/jonm.12540

Policy to practice: Investment in transitioning new graduate nurses to the workplace

2018· article· en· W2790853680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrea Baumann, Mabel Hunsberger, Mary Crea‐Arsenio, Noori Akhtar‐Danesh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNursing education and management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMentorshipGraduation (instrument)WorkforceNursingGovernment (linguistics)Nursing managementQuality (philosophy)Health careWorkforce managementPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To analyse nurses' perceptions of the impact of an extended transition programme on key dimensions of care delivery 1-6 years after graduation. The dimensions included decision-making, communication, care management, system integration and commitment. BACKGROUND: Health care employers in Ontario, Canada, can apply for government funding to support an extended transition programme for new graduate nurses that includes orientation and mentorship. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used. Nurses who participated in the transition programme were compared with nurses who did not. A survey was administered to a convenience sample of 2369 nurses. RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between the two groups. Nurses in the transition programme had higher mean scores on the key dimensions of care delivery. Results were confirmed when controlling for length of time since graduation. CONCLUSION: Extended transition benefits new graduate nurses. It has a lasting effect over time and impacts key dimensions of care delivery. It can also enhance workforce integration and reduce turnover. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Responding to the needs of new graduate nurses has potential long-term advantages for health care organisations and can influence both quality and delivery of care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ManagementSame topicNursing education and managementFrench-language works237,207