Perceptions of critical and emergency department nurses regarding changes in their professional role
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
Objective Preliminary investigation of the way Greek critical and emergency department nurses conceptualize changes in their professional role. Method A qualitative focus-group methodology was applied. Following purposeful sampling and informed consent of participants. Results Participated eight individuals. The need for enhancement of nurses' participation in decision-making in order for an actual change in their professional role to be achieved was the central theme of participants' narratives. Perceived advancements in professional role performance regarded: evidence-based practice; technology; education, knowledge; clinical skills; research; heightened nurse-physician collaboration. Perceived reasons why these advancements failed to enhance nurses' professional role were lack of meritocracy; competitive relationships; lack of support among nurses; insufficient managerial support; budget limitations. Conclusion Despite advancements in clinical practice, participants did not deem that their professional role was enhanced significantly, as participation in decision-making and control over practice remain limited. Interventions targeted to enhance nurses' participation in clinical decision-making, and overall professional autonomy are recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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