Describing the leadership capabilities of advanced practice nurses using a qualitative descriptive study
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
AIM: The aim of this study is to explore advanced practice nurses' perceptions of their leadership capabilities. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive methodology informed by a well-established leadership framework was used to explore advanced practice nurses' perceptions of their leadership. METHODS: Purposive sampling of advanced practice nurses working in tertiary acute care facilities in Eastern Canada was employed. Data sources included face-to-face interviews and document analysis. Fourteen advanced practice nurses participated in two audio-taped semi-structured interviews from March 2013-January 2014. Data were transcribed and analysed using NVIVO 10 software and content analysis. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified: "Patient-focused leadership" and "organization and system-focused leadership". These two themes are further described through leadership domains and capabilities that clearly articulate advanced practice nursing leadership and its contribution to improving the care environment for patients and families, nurses and other healthcare providers, organizations and the healthcare system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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