Nurses’ perceptions of their role in functional focused care in hospitalised older people: An integrated review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this integrative review was to identify nurses' perspectives of their role in influencing the functional status of hospitalised older people. METHODS: An integrative review using Whittemore and Knafls' method was conducted using EBSCOhost CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), EBSCOhost, Social Gerontology, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses data bases. Only studies with nurses' perspectives, or beliefs about their role in function-focused care were included. Content analysis was used to develop the themes nurses' role in function-focused care and barriers to functional care. RESULTS: The review found 12 relevant articles. Nurses believed that they were responsible for function-focused care, yet functional care tasks were often missed. Organisational contexts created many barriers to providing function-focused care for patients. Nurses felt powerless to address these overarching problems in their organisations. CONCLUSION: Nurses understand the importance of functional care yet often fail to carry out functional care interventions. Lack of organisational support creates a workplace that is short on staff, time and equipment and does not prioritise functional care needs. Nurse leaders and healthcare organisations need to reprioritise function-focused care for the good of patients, families and healthcare budgets.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".