No more unimplementable nurse workforce planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This paper aims to spur thought-provoking practical debates on current nurse workforce staffing and scheduling systems in relation to a critical review of Ang and colleagues’ (2018) article entitled “Nurse workforce scheduling in the emergency department: A sequential decision support system considering multiple objectives.”Design: Discussion paper on a practical discourse in connection with the aforementioned published article.Discussion: Mathematical Programming (optimisation) (MP)-based nursing research has been published for nearly thirty years almost exclusively in industrial engineering or health business administration journals, demonstrating a widening gap between nursing research and practice. Nurse scientists’ knowledge and skill of MP is insufficient, as are their interdisciplinary collaborations, setting back the advancement of nursing science. Above all, nurse scientists skilled in decision science are desperately needed for that analytic intellection which is rooted in the ‘intrinsic nature and value of nursing care.’ It is imperative that nurse scientists be well-prepared for the new age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution through both an education in MP and interdisciplinary collaboration with decision science experts in order to prevent potential stereotyped MP-based algorithm-driven destructive influences.Conclusions: The current global nursing shortage makes optimal nursing workforce staffing and scheduling more important. MP helps nurse executives and leaders to ensure the most efficient number of nurses with the most effective composition of nurse staffing at the right time for a reasonable cost. Nurse scientists urgently need to produce a new nursing knowledge base that is directly implementable in nursing practice.Impact Statement: Nurse scientists should take the leading role in producing the mathematical programming-integrated knowledge base that is directly implementable in practice.
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 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.008 |
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".