MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981410370 · doi:10.1097/hmr.0000000000000229

Organizational facilitators and barriers to optimal APRN practice: An integrative review

2018· review· en· W2981410370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lori Schirle, Allison A. Norful, Nancy Rudner, Lusine Poghosyan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care Management Review · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsWorkforceNursingChecklistPsychologyCINAHLInclusion (mineral)AutonomyHealth careMedical educationMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The organizational environment can foster or impede full deployment of advance practice registered nurses (APRNs), affecting the quality of care and patient outcomes. Given the critical role APRNs play in health care, it is important to understand organizational factors that promote or hinder APRN practice to maximize the potential of this workforce in health care systems. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence about APRN practice environments, identify organizational facilitators and barriers, and make recommendations for better APRN utilization. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed, and PsychInfo, yielding 366 studies. No time or geographic limitations were applied. Study quality was appraised using the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Studies. RESULTS: Thirty studies conducted in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands met inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies involved nurse practitioners. Facilitators to optimal practice environment were autonomy/independent practice and positive physician/APRN relations. Barriers included policy restrictions on practice, poor physician relations, poor administrator relations, and others' lack of understanding of the APRN role. Barriers correlate with job dissatisfaction and increased intent to leave job. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The review highlights the importance of physician and administration relations, organizational-level policies, and colleagues' understanding of the APRN role in promoting effective practice environments. Organizations should align policy reform efforts with factors that foster positive APRN practice environments to efficiently and effectively utilize this increasingly vital workforce. Future research is warranted.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.457 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care Management ReviewSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207