[Nurses' perception of the organisational context of nursing homes: a descriptive study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Nurses' perception of the organisational context of nursing homes: a descriptive study. INTRODUCTION: The increasing number of the elders admitted to nursing homes (NH) requires a particular emphasis on improving the quality of nursing care. The evaluation of the organizational context has recently received growing interest, for its contribution to understanding of care outcomes and staff's needs. AIM: To describe the characteristics and the nurses'perception of organizational context of NHs in which they work. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 50 NHs in the Piedmont and Aosta Valley regions. The following data were collected: sociodemographic information on nurses, years of work experience, contract type, and work-hour profile; organizational information included ownership, size, occupancy rate; and for the organizational context, the Alberta Context Tool was administered. RESULTS: Of the 312 nurses, 266 (85%) participated in the study; 79% had a university degree. Perceived organisational context scored low (median values 2.5) in terms of the availability of Interactions (Formal and Informal), Resources, Personnel and time, but good with median values above 3.5/5 on Leadership, Culture, Evaluation, Social Capital and Space, with differences according to years of experience, type and size of facility; for example, nurses working in private facilities perceived their organisational context as better than those working in public facilities. CONCLUSIONS: NHs are workplaces that are still not frequently chosen by nurses and essentially considered as places of transition or end of the career. In spite of organizational contexts perceived as positive, tangible efforts are needed to improve working conditions and the perception of nurses' role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".