Application of the Calgary-Cambridge Guide in the training of nurse-patient relationship for practice nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effects of the Calgary-Cambridge Guide training for practice nurses in promoting the nurse-patient relationship .Methods Totals of 52 practice nurses in our hospital from June 2012 to December 2012 were selected and randomly divided into the experimental group （ 25 cases ） and the control group （27 cases）.Communication skills training based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide was applied in the experimental group, while the general training materials were distributed in the control group .Nurse-patient relationship was assessed with the trust scale and the Calgary-Cambridge Guide Scale .Results After the training , the scores of respect, consistency, the authority of knowledge and technology , the sense of security and the confidence in the future of the experimental group were （3.65 ±0.45）,（3.68 ±0.58）,（3.62 ±0.51）, （3.81 ±0.45） and （3.67 ±0.64）, which were significantly higher than the scores before the training （t =-2.664,-2.712,-2.435,-3.429,-3.431, respectively;P〈0.05）.The scores of respect, consistency, the sense of security in the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group after the training （ t=2.560, 2.513, 2.231, respectively;P 〈0.05 ）.The general score and the scores of eight dimensions of Calgary-Cambridge were significantly higher than those before （P〈0.05）.The general score and the scores of eight dimensions of Calgary-Cambridge of the experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group （P〈0.05）.Conclusions The nurse-patient communication skills training based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide can effectively improve the communication skills of practice nurses , and promote the nurse-patient relationship . Key words: Calgary-Cambridge Guide; Practice nurses; Nurse-patient communication; Skill training
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".