Implementing primary healthcare nurse practitioners in long‐term care teams: A qualitative descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To identify the conditions needed to implement nurse practitioners (NP) in long-term care (LTC) in Québec, Canada. DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive study was undertaken. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews (N = 91) and socio-demographic questionnaires were completed with providers and managers from May 2016-March 2017. Nurse practitioner activity logs were compiled at three sites. Content analysis was used. RESULTS: All sites initially implemented a shared care model but not all sites successfully implemented a consultative model. The progression was influenced by physicians' level of comfort in moving towards a consultative model. Weekly meetings with physicians and nurse managers and an office for NPs located near healthcare teams facilitated communication and improved implementation. Half-time NP positions facilitated recruitment. Improvements were noted in timely care for residents, family involvement and quality of documentation of the healthcare team. Regulatory restrictions on prescribing medications used frequently in LTC and daily physician presence at some sites limited implementation. CONCLUSION: The project fostered an understanding of the conditions needed to successfully implement NPs in LTC. An examination of the perspective of residents and families is needed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".