Scoping review: Scope of practice of nurse‐led services and access to care for people experiencing homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the scope of practice of nurse-led services for people experiencing homelessness, and the influence on access to healthcare. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: On 20 November 2020, the following databases were searched: CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed and Scopus. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies focused on people experiencing homelessness aged 18 years and over, nurse-led services in any setting and described the nursing scope of practice. Studies were peer-reviewed primary research, published in English from the year 2000. Three authors performed quality appraisals using the mixed methods assessment tool. Results were synthesized and discussed narratively and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR 2020 Statement. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included from the United States (n = 9), Australia (n = 4), United Kingdom (n = 4) and Canada (n = 2). The total participant sample size was n = 6303. Studies focused on registered nurses (n = 10), nurse practitioners (n = 5) or both (n = 4), in outpatient or community settings. The nursing scope of practice was broad and covered a range of skills, knowledge and attributes. Key skills identified include assessment and procedural skills, client support and health education. Key attributes were a trauma-informed approach and building trust through communication. Important knowledge included understanding the impact of homelessness, knowledge of available services and the capacity to undertake holistic assessments. Findings suggest that nurse-led care facilitated access to healthcare through building trust and supporting clients to access services. CONCLUSION: Optimized nursing scope of practice can facilitate access to healthcare for people experiencing homelessness. Key factors in enabling this include autonomy in nursing practice, organizational support and education. IMPACT: The broad range of skills, knowledge and attributes reported provide a foundation from which to design an educational framework to optimize the nursing scope of practice, thereby increasing access to healthcare for people experiencing homelessness.
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 | 0.056 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".