Emergence of informal clinical leadership as a catalyst for improving patient care quality and job satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To analyse the critical attributes of clinical leadership and test a model linking clinical leadership behaviours of staff nurses to patient care quality and job satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Research has historically proclaimed the beneficial effects of clinical leadership for optimizing care and improving patient outcomes. Few studies, however, have assessed the influence of clinical leadership at the staff nurse level and empirically tested the concept. DESIGN: A predictive cross-sectional design was used in this study. METHODS: Data were collected during January 2016 using a survey questionnaire. A random sample of Registered nurses working in direct care positions in acute care hospitals was surveyed. The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling in the analysis of a moment structures software. RESULTS: Nurses reported higher levels of clinical leadership skills in their practice. Staff nurses' use of clinical leadership behaviours directly and positively influenced the quality of care they given to patients and their satisfaction in the workplace. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that informal leadership at the clinical level may be an underused asset in health care and if identified and developed, staff nurse clinical leaders have potential to improve the delivery of patient care and may offer a tangible solution to the patient safety conundrum.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".