Nurse managers’ support of fundamental care in the hospital setting. An interpretive description of nurse managers’ experiences across Australia, Denmark, and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the role of ward-based nurse managers in supporting nurses to undertake high-quality fundamental care. DESIGN: A qualitative study guided by the principles of interpretive description. Reported in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ). METHODS: Nurse managers in three urban, publicly funded hospitals in Australia, Denmark and New Zealand, were invited to participate in group interviews to discuss how they support fundamental care in their clinical areas. Six group interviews were conducted between February 2017 and March 2020 involving 31 participants. RESULTS: Six interrelated themes were identified: Difficulty expressing how to support the nurse-patient relationship; Establishing expectations for care delivery without clear strategies for how this can be achieved; Role modelling desired behaviours; Significance of being present to support care quality; The importance of engaging and supporting staff in their work; and Recognizing the challenges of prioritizing care needs. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that nurse managers are not universally clear in explaining how they support their staff to provide fundamental care. If fundamental care is not clearly understood and communicated in the nursing team, then there are risks that fundamental care will not be prioritized, with potential negative consequences for patient care. Nurse managers may benefit from additional resources and guidance to help them to support fundamental care delivery in their clinical areas. IMPACT: Previous research exploring fundamental care and missed care highlights the importance of the role of the nurse manager in influencing nursing care. This study demonstrates that though nurse managers have a passion for supporting their staff to deliver fundamental care, clear strategies to achieve this are not always evident. This study suggests that scholarship around leadership to promote and facilitate fundamental care is crucial to improving nursing practice and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".