The relationship between nursing leadership and patient outcomes: a systematic review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this review was to describe findings of a systematic review of studies that examine the relationship between nursing leadership and patient outcomes. BACKGROUND: With recent attention directed to the creation of safer practice environments for patients, nursing leadership is called on to advance this agenda within organizations. However, surprisingly little is known about the actual association between nursing leadership and patient outcomes. METHODS: Published English-only research articles that examined formal nursing leadership and patient outcomes were selected from computerized databases and manual searches. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were completed for the final seven quantitative research articles. RESULTS: Evidence of significant associations between positive leadership behaviours, styles or practices and increased patient satisfaction and reduced adverse events were found. Findings relating leadership to patient mortality rates were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: The findings of this review suggest that an emphasis on developing transformational nursing leadership is an important organizational strategy to improve 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it