Experience of nurse practitioners transitioning into independent practice: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore and describe the role transition of new Nurse Practitioners (NPs) following participation in an internship program with simulated learning to better understand the barriers and facilitators of achieving an autonomous role as an NP.Methods: In a large academic research medical center in Houston, Texas, purposive sampling was used to recruit a sample of 14 acute care NPs who had recently participated in a pre-graduate internship program. Demographic data were collected and in-depth, one-on-one interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Colaizzi’s process for phenomenological data analysis was used.Results: Four themes emerged from the analysis of the interviews: Putting on My NP Shoes, which described the participants’ statements about progression in their new role; We’re Only as Good as We Train, which described the participants’ statements about how NPs are trained to practice compared with other professionals; My Internship Prepared Me, which described how additional education and exposure to an internship program prepared the participants for entry into practice; and Relationships Provided Success, which described the participants’ statements about building collaborative relationships with physicians and staff that impacted their transition.Conclusions: The findings from this phenomenological study will provide knowledge to develop or adapt educational programs for NPs and to further develop internship or postgraduate residency programs for advance practice nurses.
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 | 0.020 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".