Practice Patterns of Nurse Practitioners in a Multi-Site Academic Healthcare Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the day-to-day activities, known as practice patterns, of nurse practitioners (NPs) across a four-site academic healthcare network in Ontario, which comprises acute, primary, rehabilitation and complex continuing care. BACKGROUND: Information regarding NP practice patterns is available from other jurisdictions and practice settings, but information specific to large, urban and multi-site organizations is available to a lesser extent. This information can inform and support leaders' decisions about NP roles and responsibilities. METHOD: A cross-sectional online survey was sent to the 125 NPs employed in this healthcare network. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 45) were primarily experienced, graduate-prepared NPs, who work with specialized populations and support the education of healthcare professional trainees. The majority of these NPs' activities focused on direct and indirect care, with fewer activities centred on leadership/administration, education, research and personal breaks. Clinical care activities varied among NPs and were contextual to the population and program. CONCLUSION: While direct and indirect care are vital components of NP practice, the overwhelming emphasis on these components indicates that the organization and the healthcare system are losing opportunities to capitalize on advanced nursing practice knowledge and skills in the domains of leadership, research and education.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".