Nursing Within Primary Care Settings in Atlantic Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To address the prevalence of chronic diseases in Newfoundland and Labrador, the province has committed to primary health care reform, including implementing interdisciplinary primary care (PC) teams. To inform discussions regarding integrating nurse practitioners (NPs), registered nurses (RNs), and licensed practical nurses (LPNs) into these teams, better understanding of their roles in PC is needed. A scoping review was conducted to examine and synthesize existing evidence related to nursing roles and resources in PC settings across Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island), and associated contributions to patient care. Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was used. The Nursing Role Effectiveness Model guided the review. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. Roles of RNs and NPs in PC included chronic disease management, education, and health promotion. No literature focused on LPNs. Interdisciplinary collaboration was evident across studies. However, nurses’ functions within teams were limited by institutional constraints and other providers. PC settings with nurses had positive clinical outcomes, improved access to services, and high patient satisfaction. The prevalence of nursing in PC throughout Atlantic Canada and how nurses’ roles are enacted is unclear. There is opportunity for future inquiry into specific attributes of nursing and PC teams that result in positive patient and system outcomes.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".