The expected, enacted and desired role of family practice nurses in family medicine groups as perceived by nurses and family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Family practice nurses (FPNs) have been integrated into family medicine groups (FMGs) to improve access to primary care and services. However, FPN workforce development was operationalized without a clear definition of its scope of practice, leading to misunderstandings regarding the achievement of an optimal interdisciplinary teamwork. Objective: To describe the perceptions of the expected role of FPNs by FMG nurses and head physicians in order to better understand the influence of such perceptions on the enacted and desired role of FPNs in FMGs. Methods: Using a descriptive interpretive qualitative approach (Thorne, 2016), 8 registered nurses and 4 head physicians in FMGs were interviewed individually between December 2018 and February 2019. Data were analyzed using the Miles, Huberman and Saldaña’s (2014) method. Results: Both groups believe that the expected role of FPNs is to facilitate access to care, as FMGs are one of the entry points into the healthcare system. While several nurses and head physicians perceive that they work collaboratively, hierarchical organizational relationships still continue to shape the enacted role of nurses. Task delegation and subordination activities are more prevalent than integrated collaboration and complementary activities within the interprofessional team. Both groups express different strategies to promote a more effective interdisciplinary teamwork. Discussion and conclusion: All stakeholders must support an optimal interdisciplinary teamwork and maximize the contribution of FPNs to increase patient access to primary care and services.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".