Transitioning to practice in long‐term care: New graduate nurses’ experience of an accelerated transition to nurse leader
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the transition to practice experience of new graduate nurses in long-term care. BACKGROUND: Nursing is facing increasing pressures related to outpaced demands and a greater acuity of patients accessing services. Hiring new graduate nurses into long-term care (LTC) is a strategy to counteract these pressures, however, little is known about the transition experience of new graduate Registered and Licensed Practical Nurses in this setting. DESIGN: A qualitative, explanatory case-study design explored the transition to practice experience of seven new graduate nurses and the observations of two LTC directors from two homes. The study focused on the self-described transition to practice experience and those contextual factors present in LTC that influenced this experience. METHODS: Thematic analysis of semi-structured interview transcripts and key document review were completed in 2017. RESULTS: Results of this study introduced contextual factors that must be considered in LTC as each influences the transition to practice experienced by new graduate nurses. These factors included five processes that resulted in an accelerated transition to practice experience: (a) struggling to meet expectations; (b) practicing in isolation; (c) relying on others; (d) developing skill and confidence despite challenges; and (e) recognizing complexity and value in LTC practice. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study refute universally applied transition to practice theory and contribute new understanding of the experience of the new graduate nurses in LTC settings. This study reinforces the need for greater support for nursing graduates in LTC 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".