MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978693533 · doi:10.22374/jmhan.v3i1.35

International Consensus Statement on the Role of Nurses in Supervised Consumption Sites

2019· article· en· W2978693533 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marilou Gagnon, Tim Gauthier, Elena Adán, Andy Bänninger, L. Cormier, Jennifer Kathleen Gregg, Sara L. Gill, Kirsten Horsburgh, Peter Kreutzmann, Julie Latimer, Gurvan Le Bourhis, Christina Livgard, Derek Parker, Tori Reiremo, Erin Telegdi, Teresa Thorner, Marguerite White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mental Health and Addiction Nursing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioCollege & Association of Registered Nurses of AlbertaRegent Park Community Health CentreUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatement (logic)Delphi methodScope (computer science)HarmNursingHealth careMedicineScope of practicePublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objective There are currently more than 150 supervised consumption sites (SCS) worldwide. These sites offer a much-needed point of contact between the health care system and people who use drugs and, as such, have been proven to effectively reduce harms and improve health. SCS are typically staffed by mental health and harm reduction workers, social workers, workers with living or lived experience, and registered nurses. It has been established that the care provided by nurses within SCS fall within their legislated scope of practice but the actual role of nurses in SCS remains poorly defined and understood. Material and Methods To address this significant practice, policy and research gap, a consensus statement was developed based on information generated by 17 content experts from 10 countries namely, Canada, Spain, Australia, France, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, and Scotland. The statement was developed from “the ground up” by gathering information on three content areas: nursing practice in SCS, training, and needs. This information was summarized, and then submitted to two rounds of voting using a modified Delphi method to build consensus. Results The final content of the consensus statement is comprised of five sections: (1) Philosophy of care, (2) Framework, (3) Nursing role, (4) Training requirements, and (5) Needs of nurses. Conclusion This consensus statement is the first step toward a better understanding of the role of nurses in SCS. There is immense responsibility on nurses in this setting, as the majority of people who access SCS face many barriers in accessing other health and social services, even when their need for those services may be critical. For these reasons, it is essential to better prepare nurses for these realities. We hope that this first international consensus statement can serve as a foundation to guide practice, policy, research, and operational decisions in SCS.

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)0.207
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.178
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2070.178
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0080.013
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.378 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mental Health and Addiction NursingSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207