Provision of Resident-Centered Care by Nurse Practitioners in Saskatchewan Long-Term Care Facilities: Qualitative Findings From a Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With their education and skill set, nurse practitioners (NPs) are ideally situated to provide primary care to long-term care (LTC) residents, and this is a timely development as physician presence in LTC has been decreasing. A sequential follow-up explanatory mixed methods design was used for the current study, which focused on the interviews that followed the initial survey. The sample included seven NPs who work with LTC residents in urban and rural settings in a western Canadian province. The interviews provided an opportunity for in-depth discussion regarding survey results. Interpretive description guided the data analysis. NPs provide timely access to primary care, address medication reconciliation, decrease transfers to hospitals, and take part in collaborative practice. NPs promote the health care goals of LTC residents. Departments of health would benefit from the inclusion of a wider range of health providers, including NPs, to provide timely access to quality care in LTC facilities. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 13(2), 73-81.].
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".