MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2969904913 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n12p27

Bedside clinicians retain nurses through turnover analysis and best practices

2019· article· en· W2969904913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nina Hawthorne-Spears, Mary Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredentialingEconomic shortageTurnoverMetropolitan areaNursingNursing shortageBusinessCorporate governanceMedicineHealth careBest practiceQuality (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Political scienceFinanceManagementNurse education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nursing shortage is projected to grow to well over 500,000 by 2020. Health care organizations are faced with increasing vacancies, mandating that strategic initiatives be developed to address the imperative of retaining their registered nurses (RNs). The implications for reducing RN turnover include improved safety and quality outcomes for patients. RN turnover also has financial implications. The average annual hospital cost of RN turnover is between $5.2 and $8.1 million dollars. Houston Methodist Hospital in the Texas Medical Center is a large, 1,200-bed metropolitan facility that employs over 3,000 nurses. By using shared governance to engage bedside clinicians and the ADKAR change model, nurse leaders were able to reduce organizational RN turnover from 16.39% to 10.57%, outperforming the national average and the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s benchmark for Magnet facilities with greater than or equal to 700 beds. This article will discuss the role of nurse leaders in creating a culture of retention, methods that were implemented at Houston Methodist Hospital to engage and empower beside clinicians to assume a lead role in reducing RN turnover, and the best practices discovered and implemented by bedside clinicians to improve RN turnover.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.178
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→