Nurse perspectives in the emergency department: The synergy tool in workload management and work engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore emergency nurses' perceptions of how a nurse-driven patient needs assessment tool, the synergy tool, influenced their workload management. BACKGROUND: Quadruple Aim, particularly the fourth aim of improved staff work experiences, served as the conceptual framework to engage nurses in a participatory action research project. This project took place between 2017 and 2020 in two tertiary care emergency departments in one large Canadian city. METHOD: This study employed a qualitative descriptive component, focus group interviews and nurse comments on two open-ended survey questions. RESULTS: Use of the synergy tool heightened nurses' awareness of patients' holistic care needs. Nurses also stated how patient needs assessment data helped them identify unsafe workloads. CONCLUSIONS: The synergy tool, adapted for emergency department use by nurses, was a means to engage and empower nurses. Patient needs assessment data from the tool identified staffing gaps, resulting in additional nursing staff for both emergency departments. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: A focus on patient needs assessment can be an effective way to address nurses' workload concerns.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".