Nursing Care Delivery Models and Intraprofessional Collaborative Care: Canadian Nurse Leaders’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction There are many different types of nursing care delivery models used to organize and provide care in hospitals. These models are comprised of different organizational structures and staffing skill mixes. Objective The aim of this study was to explore how nursing care delivery models promote intraprofessional collaborative care in acute care hospitals from the perspectives of nurse leaders. Methods A qualitative descriptive approach was used for this study. Telephone interviews were conducted between January 2021 and August 2021 using an interview guide comprised of semi-structured and structured questions. Using a purposeful sampling technique, ten leaders from nine hospital systems, representing both urban and rural hospitals in the province of Ontario, Canada, participated in the study. Content analysis was conducted resulting in two overarching themes. Results The first theme, Fluidity of the Model addresses the flexibility of the models and the impact of contextual factors such as changes in nurses’ scope of practice, government funding changes, staffing mix, and organizational policies and rules. The second theme, Tools of the Trade describes the resources that hospitals implement to promote intraprofessional collaboration that indirectly impacts on patient safety. Conclusion Nursing care delivery models need to be flexible and adaptable. All nursing care delivery models in this study used various tools to promote intraprofessional collaborative care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".