Humanistic caring, a nursing competency: modelling a metamorphosis from students to accomplished nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most nursing regulatory bodies expect nurses to learn to be humanistic and caring. However, the learning process and the developmental stages of this competency remain poorly documented in the nursing literature. METHODS: The study used interpretive phenomenology, and 26 participants (students and nurses) were individually interviewed. Benner's (1994) method was adapted and concretised into a five-phase phenomenological analysis to assist with intergroup comparisons. RESULTS: Critical milestones and developmental indicators were identified for each of the five stages of the 'humanistic caring' competency. Satisfaction and meaning at work seemed closely connected to the development of 'humanistic caring'. Links emerged between the development of 'humanistic caring' and three other competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse educators might insist on the fact that 'humanistic caring' goes beyond nurse-patient communication and that it is integrated in nursing care. The findings highlight that nurses' working conditions should be improved in order to uphold humanistic caring after graduation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".