Effect of a physical assessment educational program on clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effect of an educational program on physical assessment skills for registered nurses focusing on respiratory and cardiovascular systems.Methods: Design: Survey research using a self-administered questionnaire was used. Methods: The study was conducted in the physical assessment education program and the clinical settings. The study involved 104 registered nurses who completed a self-administered questionnaire, distributed immediately and 2 months after the physical assessment education program. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Results: The usage frequencies of 19 physical assessment skills increased after the educational program. The most frequently cited barrier to using these skills changed from a lack of knowledge to a lack of confidence and insufficient time. Before the program, the hospital nurses used their physical assessment skills more frequently than the home-visit nurses, but the reverse became true afterward. Nurses who recognized that they needed physical assessment skills that were learned through education showed a tendency to use these skills in nursing practice.Conclusions: These results suggest that the educational program on physical assessment skills affected the use of these skills in clinical practice for this study cohort for this study cohort.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".