Organizational support and <scp>Nurse–Physician</scp> collaboration during <scp>SARS‐CoV</scp>‐2 pandemic: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health care professionals experienced multiple uncertainties during the pandemic. Exploring health care professionals' views about collaboration and organizational support can offer insights into organizational processes and issues during the pandemic. This research explored the perspectives of nurses and physicians about organizational support and nurse-physician collaboration during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Using a qualitative descriptive design, interviews were conducted with nurses and physicians working in hospital settings. The interviews lasted for 24-61 min. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Nurses and physicians were disappointed with the organizational support, but they were satisfied with nurse-physician collaboration. The theme "Management Abusing Authority and Blaming the Victimized Workforce" included organizational nepotism, unethical managerial actions, and neglecting frontline workforce. Nurses and physicians supported each other in tackling the intensive and complex demands of the pandemic. The theme "Demonstrating Professional Humility and Overcoming Patient Care Issues at Hand" entailed subthemes - negotiating conflicts and prioritizing patient care, practicing kindness, and jointly managing conflicts with patients' families. Nurses and physicians reported frustrations with limited organizational support and abusive practices of managers. Still, they prioritized patient care needs and family-related conflicts over interprofessional tensions.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".