Patient Experience with an NP-Led Community Wound Care Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: This study examined patient satisfaction with an NP-Led community wound care program. Background: Examining patient experience provides information to guide nurse practitioner (NP) practice regarding patient experience with wound care provided by NPs in Canada. Methods: This quantitative study utilized a Likert scale questionnaire to examine patient experience with a 12-week pilot NP-Led wound care service. The population included patients registered to receive community wound management through Southwestern Ontario LHIN. Findings: Forty-nine surveys were returned (response rate-42%). Participants reported positive experiences with NP care. Bivariate analysis (ANOVA) found no statistical difference between group means of the independent variables age, education, income level, marital status, and the dependent variable patient experience (p = >.05). Mann-Whitney U demonstrated gender to be statistically significant (p = 0.14); females had higher median scores than males, 4.8 and 4.6 respectively. Linear regression determined that Males were less likely to have a positive experience (F (1, 45) = 7.7, p =.008). Conclusion: Patients had a positive experience with the NP-Led wound care service. This study provides information that is useful when designing an NP-Led wound care program.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".