Nurses’ Perspectives on Interprofessional Communication in the Prevention of Functional Decline in Hospitalized Older People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older people present with complex health issues on admission to hospital and are at high risk for functional decline and related complications. Thus, they require the services of diverse health-care professionals working in concert to support their functioning. Despite nurses' central role in caring for this patient population, and evidence indicating that interprofessional communication is a persistent challenge for nurses in acute-care settings, little is known about nurses' views on interprofessional communication in care preserving functioning in acutely admitted older people. To fill this knowledge gap, we gathered acute-care staff nurses' perspectives on interprofessional communication in a function-focused, interprofessional approach to hospital care for older adults. Thirteen focus groups were conducted with a purposeful, criterion-based sample of 57 nurses working in acute-care hospitals. Thematic analysis revealed two overarching themes capturing nurses' perspectives on key factors shaping interprofessional communication in a function-focused interprofessional approach to care (1) context of direct communication and (2) context of indirect communication. The first theme demonstrates that nurses preferred synchronous modes of communication, but some ascribed greater importance to unstructured forms of direct information-sharing, while others stressed structured direct communication, particularly interprofessional rounds. The second theme also documents divergence in nurses' views on asynchronous communication, with some emphasizing information technology and others analog tools. Perceptions of some modes of interprofessional communication were found to vary by practice setting. Theoretical and pragmatic conclusions are drawn that can be used to optimize interprofessional communication processes supporting hospitalized older people's functioning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".