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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.387
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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