MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3145973792 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v11n7p51

Developing and validating a nursing strategic plan for COVID-19 pandemic

2021· article· en· W3145973792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Magda Atiya Gaber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicValue (mathematics)Sample (material)Action planNursingStrategic planningControl (management)ConsumablesBusinessSWOT analysisPersonal protective equipmentMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MarketingManagementComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although there were many cautions about a probable pandemic, the health organizations have not prepared to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Coronavirus outbreak is a dangerous threat to humanity. An essential concern to control this pandemic is to outline an action plan, set an evaluation frame, identify monitoring techniques, detect measures, and recognize key performance factors and investigations providing evidence-based information.Methods: The descriptive and methodological design was used to achieve the objectives of the present study. This study was conducted at Zagazig University Hospitals (ZUH’s), Egypt. Three types of samples were used: A convenience sample (n = 110) including the nursing leaders, a stratified proportionate random sample (n = 302) from different categories of nurses, and a Jury committee (n = 9). One 1Questionnaire format and 2 opinionnaire sheets were utilized for data collection.Results: Statistically significant differences were found between nurses and nursing leaders concerning the dimensions of vision (p-value .000), mission (p-value .006), SWOT analysis (p-value .008), goals and objectives (p-value .000), the lines of business (p-value .000), the strategic business units (p-value .000), general strategic items(p-value .013), and action plan (role of nursing staff during the epidemic, p-value .000; immediate evacuation system, p-value .000; training, and hospital status during the epidemic, p-value .000; availability of the necessary equipment, supplies, and tools to face the epidemic and consumables, p-value .000; precautions inside the hospital, p-value .010; and infection control, p-value .002). However, there was no significant difference between nurses and nursing leaders regarding dimensions of planning for the planning, values, the key performance indicators, and the evaluation of the nursing strategic plan for COVID-19.Conclusion and recommendations: The questionnaire format of assessing nurses’ awareness about the nursing strategic plan for COVID-19 is reliable, valid, and usable. Nurses’ awareness about a nursing strategic plan for COVID-19 was generally poor and needs to be raised. The nursing strategic plan for COVID-19 was developed and validated. The suggested strategic plan for COVID-19should be utilized at ZUH's. ZUH's should allocate the needed and required resources for the application of the recommended plan for overcoming COVID-19 or any future occurrences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.078
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0780.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.428
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.040 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts→French-language works237,207→