The impact of nursing students’ sleep hygiene practices on patient safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nursing students are prone to inadequate sleep but not fully aware of personal health risks, potential safety and quailty of care issues. Poor sleep hygiene can impact cognition, aleartness, cognitive speed, and accuracy of tasks completion, lower grades, fatigue and depression.Methods: This descriptive study addressed quantitative data from a 4-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. Nursing students from the National Student Nurse Association enrolled in an associate or baccalaureate program and having had at least one clinical experience were invited to particiate in the study.Results: Results indicate the amount of sleep needed is not being achieved. Participants reported ingesting substances to stay awake and to induce sleep. Nineteen percent of students reported making an error during a clinical experience.Conclusions: Students may be naive in thinking short- and long-term use of sleep-inducing aides and stimulants for wakefulness pose no risks to personal safety and safety of patients. By identifying and addressing systemic causes of nursing students lack of sleep using a comprehensive approach to educate, impose consequences, and promote sleep hygiene at the local and national levels, students will have fewer reasons and justifications for not achieving adequate sleep.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".