MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Care management instruments used by nurses in the emergency hospital services

2021· article· en· W3197799481 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisWork (physics)NursingCoping (psychology)Qualitative researchFocus groupTriangulationService (business)PsychologyMedicineBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe the instruments used by nurses for the management of care in face of the demands of the emergency hospital service. METHOD: This is a qualitative study, with triangulation of data from interviews, focus groups, and documents, conducted with nurses from an Emergency Hospital Service in a state in southern Brazil. Data were subjected to thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Seventeen nurses participated in the study. The categories emerging from this study were view of the whole picture, definition of priorities, and physical instruments. These instruments are used by nurses to manage multiple tasks and provide adequate care to patients with different levels of complexity, in the face of an intense and unpredictable work process due to the constant demand for care. CONCLUSION: The instruments used by nurses in their work process are mainly skills and attitudes developed as a coping strategy at an intense and complex work environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.371 · 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