Nurses’ perceptions of the dynamics and impacts of teamwork with physicians in labour and delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional teamwork is touted as essential to positive patient, staff, and organizational outcomes. However, differing understandings of teamwork and divergent professional cultures amongst healthcare providers influence the success of teamwork. In labour and delivery, nurse-physician teamwork is vital to safe, family-centered maternity care. In this focused ethnography, the perceptions of obstetrical nurses were sought to understand nurse-physician teamwork and the features that facilitate or impede it. These nurses acknowledged working in a normative hierarchy, with physicians ultimately responsible for patient care decision-making. They described myriad ways in which they navigated traditional power dynamics and smoothed working relationships with physicians, such as circumventing disrespectful behaviors, venting with each other, highlighting their own autonomy, using tactical communication, and managing unit resources. According to these nurses, key facilitators of functional nurse-physicians relationships were time, trust, respect, credibility, and social connection. Further, the nature of their working relationships with physicians influenced their perceptions regarding intent to stay, workplace morale, and patient 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".