When Bothering is Part of Professional Practice: Interprofessional Collaboration and Institutional Influences in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Western healthcare systems, increasing numbers of nurse practitioners are practicing in primary care organizations, and their integration onto interprofessional teams can be somewhat bumpy. In this article, we rely on the institutional theory of organizational communication to investigate the situated communication challenges faced by NPs as they integrate onto primary health care teams (RQ1), and how these local challenges manifested institutional features (RQ2). We analyze interview data from NPs, their physician partners, clinical nurses, and a network administrator for NPs at five family medicine clinics in Quebec, Canada. We found three main challenges to IP communication between NPs and physicians, namely a lack of time, the professional necessity of bothering, and talking to - and like - a doctor. We present the solutions that participants found to overcome or workaround these challenges. We also interpreted the institutional features that inflected - or "moored" - the situated communication practices and challenges reported by our participants to better understand how the local experience of IP communication is shaped by broader institutional forces.
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 | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".