Patient satisfaction with nurse practitioner care in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to determine the level of patient satisfaction with health care provided by Nurse Practitioners (NPs) in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), in primary health care settings.Methods: This is a descriptive study. 155 adult patients (N = 155) were recruited from the four regional health authorities (RHAs) throughout NL who employed NPs in a primary health care setting. A 47-item questionnaire called the Nurse Practitioner Satisfaction Survey (NPSS) was given to patients after receiving care from a NP.Results: Over 93% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed with their degree of satisfaction of care provided by the NP. Patients who visited the NP one to five times in the past year reported higher levels of satisfaction. No significant differences based upon marital status, gender or ethnicity were found.Conclusions: Patient satisfaction was rated as high for care provided by NPs with over 98% of participants reporting they would seek the services of a NP in the future. The majority of the participants would recommend the NP to others seeking health care services. This study describes patient satisfaction with NP care and highlights NPs as valued providers of care in rural and urban primary health care settings. Identified narrative themes were timely access to care, NP knowledge, trust, and provider consistency. NPs should seek ways to ensure they work to their full scope of practice to meet the needs of the population and increase their presence in primary health care settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".