Nurse Practitioners in Orthopaedic Surgical Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to conduct an extensive literature review of nurse practitioners (NPs) in orthopaedic surgical settings to delineate whether a need exists for NPs in these settings. BACKGROUND: Due to physician shortages and changes in healthcare, patients are experiencing difficulty accessing orthopaedic surgeons. To meet this need, NPs are becoming an essential part of the multidisciplinary orthopaedic team in Level 1 trauma hospitals. RESULTS: Nurse practitioners are qualified and competent to work in a variety of orthopaedic settings including preoperative clinics, primary care orthopaedic clinics, and pre-/postoperative care within the hospital. The benefits of NPs in orthopaedic surgical settings includes increased access to care, improved team communication, decreased length of stay, improved quality of care, and improved patient satisfaction. Moreover, NPs meet patient needs while surgeons are operating, and have a positive impact on resident surgeon education. CONCLUSION: A need exists for NPs in orthopaedic surgical settings to both improve access to healthcare for patients and reduce the burden on orthopaedic surgeons.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".